Berkeley "liberals" contra free speech

[J842P]

Oh the left here is still fighting for everybody, but there is a clear and present danger of the United States being taken over by a right-wing fascist dictatorship. The tools that are being used to are a wide variety and some are anti-social. Are they effective or counter productive?

That is what we are discussing here.

Right. And this is extremely counter-productive. In fact, what happened at Berkley looks like it was *designed by fascists to take power*. The left is too far up its own ass. It couldn't strategize it's way out of a paper bag, let alone play "The Game of Thrones". And forget about violent resistance. That would be downright sad.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Panelist decides not to appear on Teevee with Milo.

https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/832011012018728960/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

He gave an opinion but no specifics. I watched several of his Youtubes and didn't see anything racist on it.

 

[J842P]

Panelist decides not to appear on Teevee with Milo.

https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/832011012018728960/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

He gave an opinion but no specifics. I watched several of his Youtubes and didn't see anything racist on it.

Milo isn't racist, he is not a White Supremacist, and he is not a homophobe. He does not advocate limiting the role of women, although, he does have pretty on-point criticisms of contemporary academic feminism. I don't think he is any more of a nationalist than your typical right-winger, although, that isn't saying much.

In any event, Milo is your run-of-the-mill conservative with libertarian leanings. He has discovered the left's krypotnite, which is that you can troll them into losing their shit, and then he gains support form normal people who actually listen to what he has to say, and the left never respond with anything other than "racist! homophobe! ALT-RIGHT!"

 

[Nice Squirrel]

He gave an opinion but no specifics. I watched several of his Youtubes and didn't see anything racist on it.

Milo isn't racist, he is not a White Supremacist, and he is not a homophobe. He does not advocate limiting the role of women, although, he does have pretty on-point criticisms of contemporary academic feminism. I don't think he is any more of a nationalist than your typical right-winger, although, that isn't saying much.

In any event, Milo is your run-of-the-mill conservative with libertarian leanings. He has discovered the left's krypotnite, which is that you can troll them into losing their shit, and then he gains support form normal people who actually listen to what he has to say, and the left never respond with anything other than "racist! homophobe! ALT-RIGHT!"

My main problem with him is that he organizes harassment campaigns against private individuals.

 

[repoman]

that was an interesting case. The trans person (who was doing a minimal job of transitioning looks from male to female) had make himself a public figure by filing the legal challenge.

One thing that Milo did that was funny and possibly true was say that there is a domestic violence problem with lesbians. It was very well written, however. Vey pithy.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/07/attack-of-the-killer-dykes/

e’re told that the greatest predator on earth isn’t the tiger shark or the lion but the lowly straight white male, a violent, aggressive thug who prowls the streets, raping, beating and killing unsuspecting women. But it is not so: in fact, women in relationships with other women are dramatically more likely to get knocked about by their partners.
Lesbian violence is poorly understood because it is poorly researched, and poorly researched because it makes the gay lobby deeply uncomfortable. We’re not supposed to admit that any kind of gay relationship might have a dark side. It’s all unicorns and Mariah Carey, as far as charities, politicians and the media are concerned.

Except it really isn’t. The news yesterday that a child was spirited away from its birth mother to be brought up by gay dads and the mother subjected to a gagging order so she couldn’t go to the press about it chilled some researchers to the bone. They know what I’m about to tell you: that many children going to adoptive parents, and many surrogate babies, go to lesbian couples.

And so rampant and apparently worsening is the dyke domestic violence epidemic that statistically 1 in 3 of these children will witness domestic, or, as we call it these days, “intimate partner” violence.

We’re just starting to see the results of letting gay couples bring up children. It’s not a wholly pleasant vista. Some studies show that children brought up in gay households are more likely to have emotional problems.

And then there’s the harrowing confessional Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting by Heather Barwick, a former gay-marriage advocate turned children’s rights activist who was raised by two women. When kids turn against their homosexual upbringing it always seems to be mom couples.

If you’ve ever heard of a gruesome murder in your neighbourhood in which the short-haired victim was beaten savagely with a rolled-up copy of Saga magazine and then strangled with a jock strap, it’s probably not some terrifying new sadistic white male serial killer, but rather another dyke domestic that got out of hand.

Up to 45 per cent of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner and that 30 per cent of lesbians have reported sexual assault or rape by another woman. And those are conservative figures from a small domestic violence support group.

Only transsexuals have a rate anywhere close to that, with 34.6 per cent of trannies reporting nails ripped off, wigs torn and HRT pills flushed down the loo, according to a Massachusetts survey.

 

[J842P]

Milo isn't racist, he is not a White Supremacist, and he is not a homophobe. He does not advocate limiting the role of women, although, he does have pretty on-point criticisms of contemporary academic feminism. I don't think he is any more of a nationalist than your typical right-winger, although, that isn't saying much.

In any event, Milo is your run-of-the-mill conservative with libertarian leanings. He has discovered the left's krypotnite, which is that you can troll them into losing their shit, and then he gains support form normal people who actually listen to what he has to say, and the left never respond with anything other than "racist! homophobe! ALT-RIGHT!"

My main problem with him is that he organizes harassment campaigns against private individuals.

That's a load of bullshit. Again, this is something that is merely claimed, like that he is a racist-homophobe. It is then repeated by liberals and everyone pats themselves on the back for being such good people. Of course, everyone outside that bubble, the great mass of people who don't follow this sort of shit, actually do listen to what Milo has to say or see what has actually happened, and then it becomes transparent that the liberals have just lost the fucking plot and are tilting at windmills.

To elaborate:

If you are referring to the incident at with Justine Kramer, she went public with a discrimination claim against the University. She is now a public figure. You cannot go on the news and then get upset that people show clips from that interview.

If you are talking about the Twitter thing, Milo didn't organize anything. He had a back-and-forth with Lesilie Jones, and the tweets he made didn't rise above the level of mere bitchiness. Indeed, if you or anyone on the left had actually read his review on the new Ghostbusters, he points out how jarringly stereotypical Jone's character actually is! Which is true!

Let’s focus on how this movie will be interrogated by audiences: its style and politics. The weak, Twitter-style feminist quips come off as lame, unfunny, and resentful. This is especially puzzling in light of the women in the original movies, who captured the range of tough broads one finds in New York City.

Janine even acted as a Ghostbuster in the cartoon series, without it being hailed as a revolutionary act of feminist girl power. What we are left with is a movie to help lonely middle-aged women feel better about themselves after being left on the shelf. It’s an overpriced self-esteem device for women betrayed by the lies of third-wave feminism.

Despite pandering to the kind of woman who thinks misandry is a positive lifestyle choice, Ghostbusters is remarkably unkind to its female leads. Abigail is repellant and fat. Holtzmann is a clownish, lip-syncing drag queen. Erin is a forgettable, low-rent Jennifer Aniston clone. Patty is a two dimensional racist stereotype by even the most forgiving measure.

Patty is the worst of the lot. The actress is spectacularly unappealing, even relative to the rest of the odious cast. But it’s her flat-as-a-pancake black stylings that ought to have irritated the SJWs. I don’t get offended by such things, but they should.

Ghostbusters, the film acting as standard bearer for the social justice left, is full of female characters that are simply stand-ins for men plus a black character worthy of a minstrel show. Remember, the original film not only represented women well, but also had Winston Zeddemore, the character with his feet most firmly on the ground in the entire movie.

 

[J842P]

I should add, I am super disappointed that Jeremy Scahill is refusing to go on Maher. Scahill is one of the people I admire most in this world. It would have been priceless to have him embarrass Milo on Trump's foreign policy, for example, or conservative foreign policy in general. Alas, it won't be so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I should add, I am super disappointed that Jeremy Scahill is refusing to go on Maher. Scahill is one of the people I admire most in this world. It would have been priceless to have him embarrass Milo on Trump's foreign policy, for example, or conservative foreign policy in general. Alas, it won't be so.

Ya, that does seem to be the exact sort of thing that Maher was talking about when he booked Milo. There are a lot of people on the left who try to shut down or ignore opinions which disagree with theirs than trying to counter them. Facts have a distinct liberal bias and liberals like Scahill need to be more willing to engage morons like Milo as opposed to playing into the guy's martyr complex and let him go on for a month about how they're afraid to let him air his ideas.

 

[blastula]

I don't get all the attention given to this guy. He's just an internet troll with nothing noteworthy to say. He should just be ignored. The protests, including the peaceful ones, don't help anything worthwhile, they mainly propagate his name. The vast majority of people who have heard his name probably only know his name and nothing much of what he has said.

 

[ZiprHead]

The only person on the show that would be engaging Milo is Maher. Milo is the opening interview guest, not a panelist.

 

[TSwizzle]

I should add, I am super disappointed that Jeremy Scahill is refusing to go on Maher. Scahill is one of the people I admire most in this world. It would have been priceless to have him embarrass Milo on Trump's foreign policy, for example, or conservative foreign policy in general. Alas, it won't be so.

Scahill is refusing to go on for all the wrong reasons. I could understand his refusal if he said something like Milo is an attention seeking whore, a third rate youtube blogger that is not worth my time, I can't take him seriously and so I won't take part in this charade, I think that would be appropriate.

For the most part Milo is a larger than life internet troll, not worth bothering about and easily ignored.

 

[J842P]

I should add, I am super disappointed that Jeremy Scahill is refusing to go on Maher. Scahill is one of the people I admire most in this world. It would have been priceless to have him embarrass Milo on Trump's foreign policy, for example, or conservative foreign policy in general. Alas, it won't be so.

Scahill is refusing to go on for all the wrong reasons. I could understand his refusal if he said something like Milo is an attention seeking whore, a third rate youtube blogger that is not worth my time, I can't take him seriously and so I won't take part in this charade, I think that would be appropriate.

For the most part Milo is a larger than life internet troll, not worth bothering about and easily ignored.

Yes. And, although, I do think he can be funny, he's seriously out of his depth if he ever has to argue with someone serious. Joe Rogan has handled him the best when it comes to calling him on his bullshit. What Milo was able to tap into was a subset of young people who are ideologically conservative, but are not racists, homophobic, transphobic or whatever. He basically has saved the Republican party from losing a large part of the Millennial generation. And he has done this by tolling the Left and exposing their most ridiculous excesses.

 

[whichphilosophy]

He gave an opinion but no specifics. I watched several of his Youtubes and didn't see anything racist on it.

Milo isn't racist, he is not a White Supremacist, and he is not a homophobe. He does not advocate limiting the role of women, although, he does have pretty on-point criticisms of contemporary academic feminism. I don't think he is any more of a nationalist than your typical right-winger, although, that isn't saying much.

In any event, Milo is your run-of-the-mill conservative with libertarian leanings. He has discovered the left's krypotnite, which is that you can troll them into losing their shit, and then he gains support form normal people who actually listen to what he has to say, and the left never respond with anything other than "racist! homophobe! ALT-RIGHT!"

In fact the 'radical or loony left' calls anyone these if they are right wing of Trotsky (maybe I'm a bit extreme in this attempted satire).

 

[J842P]

Milo isn't racist, he is not a White Supremacist, and he is not a homophobe. He does not advocate limiting the role of women, although, he does have pretty on-point criticisms of contemporary academic feminism. I don't think he is any more of a nationalist than your typical right-winger, although, that isn't saying much.

In any event, Milo is your run-of-the-mill conservative with libertarian leanings. He has discovered the left's krypotnite, which is that you can troll them into losing their shit, and then he gains support form normal people who actually listen to what he has to say, and the left never respond with anything other than "racist! homophobe! ALT-RIGHT!"

In fact the 'radical or loony left' calls anyone these if they are right wing of Trotsky (maybe I'm a bit extreme in this attempted satire).

Honestly, I think such a comparison belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the sort of politics of the new generation. Most of them don't even know who Trotsky is, and the arguments aren't primarily economic. It's essentially a cultural divide, rather than an ideological one.

The example of the left's reaction to Trump is telling. Trump is actually the most economically left-wing candidate the Republicans have fielded in a long time, at least based on the campaign rhetoric. Obviously, it was a con, and the man is a pure crony capitalist. But, he did win the Rust Belt by using rhetoric *to the left* of Clinton. I think it reveals how little the average Republican really cared about the ideology espoused by people like Paul Ryan. Indeed, the silver lining for me has been how Trump has revealed how little support actually exists for right-wing economic ideology.

 

[blastula]

So, the left should have not been so hard on Trump because of that time he said something liberal?

 

[J842P]

So, the left should have not been so hard on Trump because of that time he said something liberal?

What? Jesus, see, this is a GREAT example of the sort of knee-jerk partisanship I've been talking about. What could possibly be interpreted that way in what I wrote?

And anyway, at least what he *said* was pretty left wing. His economic platform was overtly protectionist, which is typically a left-wing platform. His acceptance speech was about a fucking infrastructure program.

Put him up against Hillary, who has always been a neoliberal on issues like trade, and he looked like a downright Leftist. And that is telling, because this is a man best-known for his reality-TV persona of the Big Boss with a catch-phrase of "You're fired." This is who the Democrats allowed to become fucking Tribune of the People. Because the Democrats abandoned the working class and their economic ideals for right-wing, republican-lite ideals in the 80s and 90s. And they have no-one to blame but themselves.

 

[blastula]

So, the left should have not been so hard on Trump because of that time he said something liberal?

What? Jesus, see, this is a GREAT example of the sort of knee-jerk partisanship I've been talking about. What could possibly be interpreted that way in what I wrote?

And anyway, at least what he *said* was pretty left wing. His economic platform was overtly protectionist, which is typically a left-wing platform. His acceptance speech was about a fucking infrastructure program.

Put him up against Hillary, who has always been a neoliberal on issues like trade, and he looked like a downright Leftist. And that is telling, because this is a man best-known for his reality-TV persona of the Big Boss with a catch-phrase of "You're fired." This is who the Democrats allowed to become fucking Tribune of the People. Because the Democrats abandoned the working class and their economic ideals for right-wing, republican-lite ideals in the 80s and 90s. And they have no-one to blame but themselves.

You said "The example of the left's reaction to Trump is telling." How are they supposed to have reacted given that you admit the rhetoric was a con and given that his economic rhetoric WAS NOT THE ONLY THING WE KNEW ABOUT HIM?

 

[J842P]

What? Jesus, see, this is a GREAT example of the sort of knee-jerk partisanship I've been talking about. What could possibly be interpreted that way in what I wrote?

And anyway, at least what he *said* was pretty left wing. His economic platform was overtly protectionist, which is typically a left-wing platform. His acceptance speech was about a fucking infrastructure program.

Put him up against Hillary, who has always been a neoliberal on issues like trade, and he looked like a downright Leftist. And that is telling, because this is a man best-known for his reality-TV persona of the Big Boss with a catch-phrase of "You're fired." This is who the Democrats allowed to become fucking Tribune of the People. Because the Democrats abandoned the working class and their economic ideals for right-wing, republican-lite ideals in the 80s and 90s. And they have no-one to blame but themselves.

You said "The example of the left's reaction to Trump is telling." How are they supposed to have reacted given that you admit the rhetoric was a con and given that his economic rhetoric WAS NOT THE ONLY THING WE KNEW ABOUT HIM?

Perhaps it is my fault for poor formatting, but here is what I posted:

Most of them don't even know who Trotsky is, and the arguments aren't primarily economic. It's essentially a cultural divide, rather than an ideological one.

The example of the left's reaction to Trump is telling. Trump is actually the most economically left-wing candidate the Republicans have fielded in a long time, at least based on the campaign rhetoric. Obviously, it was a con, and the man is a pure crony capitalist. But, he did win the Rust Belt by using rhetoric *to the left* of Clinton. I think it reveals how little the average Republican really cared about the ideology espoused by people like Paul Ryan.

Of course, since you cannot get past your own partisanship, you immediately think I'm saying that the Left should have reacted in a different way. My point was, it wasn't the economic rhetoric that was the left's problem with Trump. And that reveals that the divide between the two sides in America is not primarily economic

Now, maybe I'm wrong, and I'd be happy to discuss that. I think it's a fascinating time in American politics. But that is only possible if you can get past your kneejerk reaction of "I've got to defend my side!"

 

[blastula]

You said "The example of the left's reaction to Trump is telling." How are they supposed to have reacted given that you admit the rhetoric was a con and given that his economic rhetoric WAS NOT THE ONLY THING WE KNEW ABOUT HIM?

Perhaps it is my fault for poor formatting, but here is what I posted:

Most of them don't even know who Trotsky is, and the arguments aren't primarily economic. It's essentially a cultural divide, rather than an ideological one.

The example of the left's reaction to Trump is telling. Trump is actually the most economically left-wing candidate the Republicans have fielded in a long time, at least based on the campaign rhetoric. Obviously, it was a con, and the man is a pure crony capitalist. But, he did win the Rust Belt by using rhetoric *to the left* of Clinton. I think it reveals how little the average Republican really cared about the ideology espoused by people like Paul Ryan.

Of course, since you cannot get past your own partisanship, you immediately think I'm saying that the Left should have reacted in a different way. My point was, it wasn't the economic rhetoric that was the left's problem with Trump. And that reveals that the divide between the two sides in America is not primarily economic.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, and I'd be happy to discuss that. I think it's a fascinating time in American politics. But that is only possible if you can get past your kneejerk reaction of "I've got to defend my side!"

You are right that the divide on economics is not so clear cut. For instance, I as a self-identified liberal am not pro-protectionism. You are still wrong if you are saying the left should have no left-based disagreement with Trump even taking his rhetoric at his word. Protectionism was not the only economic plank. You are wrong that his economics in whole were to the left of Clinton. And stop being so kneejerk with your accusations of knee-jerk partisanship.

 

[J842P]

You are still wrong if you are saying the left should have no left-based disagreement with Trump even taking his rhetoric at his word.... And stop being so kneejerk with your accusations of knee-jerk partisanship.

Look, you're going to have to take a real hard look at yourself if you keep insisting I am "saying the left should have no left-based disagreement with Trump", and then in the very next sentence, telling me I'm being knee-jerk in my accusations of partisanship. It is clear as day that I am not making any normative claims about about what the left ought to have thought about Trump. Unless you are claiming that the source of the left's antipathy to Trump is somehow his economic positions, then you are *not disagreeing with me*, and this entire back-and-forth has been a complete waste of time. I think it is undeniable that the left's antipathy towards Trump was born out of his statements about illegal immigration and Muslim refugees.

And I think you are wrong. Hilary Clinton's platform that she ran on was more left than usual, but that was mostly as a response from a primary challenge from the left, but you would have to ignore her entire political career and her history of association with the DLC. It goes against her entire political career, where she has always been a self-identified "New Democrat", which *explicitly rejects leftist economic positions, and embraces free-market, free-trade policies*. It was always branded as neoliberalism without the crazy social hangups of the Republicans. And that was good politics in the 1990s. Now, not so much.