Come Hell or High Water: You go, Milo!

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's already been documented in thread...

What's been "documented" is that people on the ideological side of the University are willing to take their claims at face value, and of course, never consider for a moment that an institution might lie to cover their ass, and will roundly dismiss the claims of their ideological opponents.

Post#102:

In an email chain obtained by the Bay Area News Group, Lucian Wintrich, one of the supposed speakers, told UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof Saturday morning that the event had been merely an attention grab from the start.

“It was known that they didn’t intend to actually go through with it last week, and completely decided on Wednesday,” Wintrich wrote.

“Wait, whoah, hold on a second,” wrote a clearly surprised Mogulof. “What, exactly, are you saying? What were you told by MILO Inc? Was it a set-up from the get-go?”

“Yes,” Wintrich, a writer for the right-wing blog The Gateway Pundit, responded.

 

[J842P]

What's been "documented" is that people on the ideological side of the University are willing to take their claims at face value, and of course, never consider for a moment that an institution might lie to cover their ass, and will roundly dismiss the claims of their ideological opponents.

Post#102:

In an email chain obtained by the Bay Area News Group, Lucian Wintrich, one of the supposed speakers, told UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof Saturday morning that the event had been merely an attention grab from the start.

“It was known that they didn’t intend to actually go through with it last week, and completely decided on Wednesday,” Wintrich wrote.

“Wait, whoah, hold on a second,” wrote a clearly surprised Mogulof. “What, exactly, are you saying? What were you told by MILO Inc? Was it a set-up from the get-go?”

“Yes,” Wintrich, a writer for the right-wing blog The Gateway Pundit, responded.

Right, so there is *one person* claiming what you've already decided you believe, and this claim comes from the Universities public affairs representative, and you now consider it a documented fact.

And indeed, it doesn't really even say what you claim it says. The guy is saying that it was decided the Wednesday before the event that it was going to be cancelled, this isn't the same as "it was a troll all along". Anyway, Milo's camp has their own version. And the only thing anyone really knows is that both sides have a vested interested in their version and in pushing a media narrative. But having two versions of a story, with no real way to know who is telling the truth (other than, of course, simply believing the side that coheres with your own ideology), is not the same thing as having "documented facts".

 

[J842P]

As far as I can tell, this is consistent with what I stated.

If your statement was evenhanded (which it wasn't) and if it clearly stated that we don't know the facts instead of claiming people are wrong, then it is consistent. Dismissing a claim of fact as unproven is not saying it is false, just that it is too early to know.

1) Evenhandedness, as far as I can tell, is not really relevant to whether or not your statement is consistent with my original one. I still claim that it is.

2) I never claimed people were *wrong*, or that the claim was false, I merely claimed that that certain claims were being taken at face value, and that which claims where being taken at face-value coincided with that person's ideological inclination.

So yeah, again, this is all consistent with "it's just to early to know". And indeed, I doubt we'll ever know the full truth. You have a representative of the University administration on one hand, a Dean of Public Affairs at that! - which, let's be real, why would anyone take anything they say regarding a subject that might reflect poorly on their organization without a healthy degree of skepticism? - and a right-wing troll on the other, who has been slippery with the truth in the past.

Yeah, you'll have an easier time figuring out if a football star raped a girl on campus than whatever the hell is happened at Berkeley in the weeks leading up to this event.

 

[skepticalbip]

Post#102:

In an email chain obtained by the Bay Area News Group, Lucian Wintrich, one of the supposed speakers, told UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof Saturday morning that the event had been merely an attention grab from the start.

“It was known that they didn’t intend to actually go through with it last week, and completely decided on Wednesday,” Wintrich wrote.

“Wait, whoah, hold on a second,” wrote a clearly surprised Mogulof. “What, exactly, are you saying? What were you told by MILO Inc? Was it a set-up from the get-go?”

“Yes,” Wintrich, a writer for the right-wing blog The Gateway Pundit, responded.

Right, so there is *one person* claiming what you've already decided you believe, and this claim comes from the Universities public affairs representative, and you now consider it a documented fact.

And indeed, it doesn't really even say what you claim it says. The guy is saying that it was decided the Wednesday before the event that it was going to be cancelled, this isn't the same as "it was a troll all along". Anyway, Milo's camp has their own version. And the only thing anyone really knows is that both sides have a vested interested in their version. But having two versions of a story, with no real way to know who is telling the truth (other than, of course, simply believing the side that coheres with your own ideology), is not the same thing as having "documented facts".

I would think that a left wing speaker, Alan Dersohwitz, threatening to sue U.C. Berkeley for a similar kind of treatment that Milo is claiming gives Milo's side a little more credence. Dersohwitz is complaining that anti-Israeli speakers have had no difficulties but him being a pro-Israeli speaker is being given hurdles to clear.

 

[Arctish]

Post#102:

In an email chain obtained by the Bay Area News Group, Lucian Wintrich, one of the supposed speakers, told UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof Saturday morning that the event had been merely an attention grab from the start.

“It was known that they didn’t intend to actually go through with it last week, and completely decided on Wednesday,” Wintrich wrote.

“Wait, whoah, hold on a second,” wrote a clearly surprised Mogulof. “What, exactly, are you saying? What were you told by MILO Inc? Was it a set-up from the get-go?”

“Yes,” Wintrich, a writer for the right-wing blog The Gateway Pundit, responded.

Right, so there is *one person* claiming what you've already decided you believe, and this claim comes from the Universities public affairs representative, and you now consider it a documented fact.

And indeed, it doesn't really even say what you claim it says. The guy is saying that it was decided the Wednesday before the event that it was going to be cancelled, this isn't the same as "it was a troll all along". Anyway, Milo's camp has their own version. And the only thing anyone really knows is that both sides have a vested interested in their version. But having two versions of a story, with no real way to know who is telling the truth (other than, of course, simply believing the side that coheres with your own ideology), is not the same thing as having "documented facts".

I would think that a left wing speaker, Alan Dersohwitz, threatening to sue U.C. Berkeley for a similar kind of treatment that Milo is claiming gives Milo's side a little more credence. Dersohwitz is complaining that anti-Israeli speakers have had no difficulties but him being a pro-Israeli speaker is being given hurdles to clear.

It will be interesting to see what those hurdles are. If they involve extra security for a high profile speaker, then I'd like to see how they compare to the hurdles organizers of a Beyoncé concert would face.

 

[laughing dog]

I would think that a left wing speaker, Alan Dersohwitz, threatening to sue U.C. Berkeley for a similar kind of treatment that Milo is claiming gives Milo's side a little more credence.

It might just be sour grapes from people who are used to getting their own way.

Dersohwitz is complaining that anti-Israeli speakers have had no difficulties but him being a pro-Israeli speaker is being given hurdles to clear.

Has he actually produced any facts to support his allegations?

 

[Arctish]

Was Ben Shapiro's talk, for which the university had to spend $600k on security, just camouflage for trolling?

How about at the University of Utah, where $25,000 dollars in security was required?

But yes, let's all focus on the fact that Milo is a troll.

I think we should.

Milo Yiannopoulos’ “censored” Berkeley event smells like a massive troll

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, that is your problem exactly. He admitted it but you cannot accept it.

Wait... Don said Milo admitted it. Now I am hearing that some school official said something? Did Milo admit it or not? This appears to have been important to Don that we "admit" it because Milo did (instead of focusing on what I was focusing on). Now I'm being told that was a lie? What's going on here?

This also fits your usual pattern: you tend to accept people's proposals at face value despite the fact that it's obvious to everyone else that the given justification for the idea is complete bullshit and is just camouflage for something that is otherwise completely counter-productive.

I said I didn't know one way or the other, and I still don't. Not prejudging is usually a good thing, yes. Especially when you lack evidence and haven't investigated anything, as I haven't in this case, because I don't care whatsoever if Milo trolled this.

An actual free speech week is a good idea. And I again encourage people to watch the youtube video I linked to above at the University of Toronto when we did something similar here (and were shouted down by the regressives mindless chants and threats of violence).

 

[laughing dog]

I said I didn't know one way or the other, and I still don't. Not prejudging is usually a good thing, yes. Especially when you lack evidence and haven't investigated anything, as I haven't in this case, because I don't care whatsoever if Milo trolled this.

There is a difference between prejudging and waiting for actual evidence. Especially if you think the perpetrator trolled the event. In fact, it is foolish to take the suspected troll's word in that case.

 

[Arctish]

Wait... Don said Milo admitted it. Now I am hearing that some school official said something? Did Milo admit it or not? This appears to have been important to Don that we "admit" it because Milo did (instead of focusing on what I was focusing on). Now I'm being told that was a lie? What's going on here?

One of the requirements the university group failed to meet was to provide Berkeley with a list of speakers for this Free Speech Week event. The list they provided was wildly inaccurate. Some people listed had already said they wouldn't be attending while others said they were never invited to speak. Also:

During his own news conference on Facebook Live on Saturday, Yiannopoulos acknowledged that he had included at least one speaker just to “troll” him.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/23/uc-berkeley-free-speech-week-officially-canceled/

So, to recap:

Milo's first appearance at Berkeley was cancelled after two of his fans shot a protester at a prior speaking event, and protesters showed up in large numbers on campus. Milo vowed to hold an event there later. In August he announced he would hold a major event at Berkeley at the invitation of a tiny student group that apparently didn't exist the month before. This group failed to meet deadlines for securing venues, failed to provide an accurate list of speakers, and failed to address glaring deficiencies in planning and organization despite working closely with MILO, Inc. and being contacted multiple times by the university. And Milo put at least one guy on the list just to troll him.

One of the supposed speakers, a right wing blogger named Lucian Wintrich, said the whole thing had been nothing but an attention grab right from the start.


So it looks like Milo trolled Berkeley as part of his Trolling the Liberal Snowflakes shtick. Is anyone surprised?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Guys, Milo was executive writer for Breitbart. He's not a valuable speaker, but instead a propagandist. His thing is to create noise to increase the size of the alt-right. They've done such a good job, nazis are coming out of the woodwork and Trump thinks they're valid news.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

One of the requirements the university group failed to meet was to provide Berkeley with a list of speakers for this Free Speech Week event. The list they provided was wildly inaccurate. Some people listed had already said they wouldn't be attending while others said they were never invited to speak. Also:

During his own news conference on Facebook Live on Saturday, Yiannopoulos acknowledged that he had included at least one speaker just to “troll” him.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/23/uc-berkeley-free-speech-week-officially-canceled/

So, to recap:

Milo's first appearance at Berkeley was cancelled after two of his fans shot a protester at a prior speaking event, and protesters showed up in large numbers on campus. Milo vowed to hold an event there later. In August he announced he would hold a major event at Berkeley at the invitation of a tiny student group that apparently didn't exist the month before. This group failed to meet deadlines for securing venues, failed to provide an accurate list of speakers, and failed to address glaring deficiencies in planning and organization despite working closely with MILO, Inc. And Milo put at least one guy on the list just to troll him.

One of the supposed speakers, a right wing blogger named Lucian Wintrich, said the whole thing had been nothing but an attention grab right from the start.


So it looks like Milo trolled Berkeley as part of his trolling liberals shtick. Is anyone surprised?

Anyone who is surprised, either doesn't know right-wing propaganda or has fallen for it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I still say Milo's motive doesn't matter. Free speech week is a good idea and should still happen. And liberals shod get onboard and send speakers of their own to talk about the value of free speech and diversity of views. Jon Haidt would be an ideal speaker for this.

 

[laughing dog]

I still say Milo's motive doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. If he was trollling, then this entire situation was faked in order to give the alt-righ and alt-SJWs something to get riled about. If he was trolling, then this entire brouhaha was not about free speech.

Free speech week is a good idea and should still happen. And liberals shod get onboard and send speakers of their own to talk about the value of free speech and diversity of views. Jon Haidt would be an ideal speaker for this.

So, why don't you just travel to UC Berkeley and talk about it?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I still say Milo's motive doesn't matter.

I don't think "motive" is quite the right word as much as it is "actions." To review, right-wingers pretended to put together a thing called free speech week, didn't complete it and the parts they did were incorrect, and then lied, complaining their rights were being taken away. The lie appears to be deliberate and pre-planned--to include well-known propagandist Milo. Now, this "free speech week" is also quite the bad phrase since it's not really "free speech," because they still can go and speak publicly, just not reserve an assembly hall with appropriate security. Their constitutional rights to free speech were never tampered with--their entitlements to use university resources under fair conditions were never tampered with either.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

To review, right-wingers pretended to put together a thing called free speech week, didn't complete it and the parts they did were incorrect, and then lied, complaining their rights were being taken away.

From what I have read a student group started this and was bullied into abandoning it, and then Milo seized on it and declared they would do it anyway. Milo claims the university put barriers and selectively enforced barriers against this event due to ideology against conservatives. That is certainly plausible.

A list of invited guests was released as confirmed speakers. Milo claims this was an error due to time pressure. His detractors claim he did it on purpose and that his entire involvement here was a mere stunt.

He also said in an interview that he would pay some transportation costs of some attendees. I wonder if anybody will pursue him over that.

And the end of the day though, stunt or not, this sort of event is a good idea and should be supported by liberals. Free speech is supposed to be a liberal ideal.

And yes, I have taken part in such a thing, here in Toronto.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Milo claims this was an error due to time pressure.

Without any additional evidence, this would appear to be bad planning.

And the end of the day though, stunt or not, this sort of event is a good idea and should be supported by liberals. Free speech is supposed to be a liberal ideal.

You cut this part of my post and did not respond to it. Why did you take away my free speech?

Now, this "free speech week" is also quite the bad phrase since it's not really "free speech," because they still can go and speak publicly, just not reserve an assembly hall with appropriate security. Their constitutional rights to free speech were never tampered with--their entitlements to use university resources under fair conditions were never tampered with either.