|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 03 2017 00:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Those protesters are disgusting people. My god, what a stupid way to handle that.
Reports seem to be coming out that the protests were ok until the black masked antifa people showed up and started inciting violence and rioting. Still retarded for some of the protesters to join in but the antifa people seem like straight up anarchists and shouldn't be associated with most of the other regular protesters.
|
On February 03 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:Anybody in this thread want to defend threatening to withdraw legit peaceful discourse from a University, despite being committed to holding an event for an individual? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem more upset about a presidential tweet than masked protestors setting a campus on fire. Like oh God he tweeted the same kind of reactionary shit he's been doing for years, but you know ehh torching universities is hardly newsworthy.
Lets not pretend this is a new thing. College campuses are full of young folks that are willing to protest and fight for their beliefs, happened during Vietnam, happened during the civil rights movements. On all sides people have protested both violently and peacefully. College campuses have usually been at the center of it precisely because they try to encourage free thought that goes against the mainstream, regardless of whether the mainstream is on the left or the right.
@Bio,
Don't throw the hypocrisy stone at the left when we all live in glass houses.
|
On February 03 2017 00:29 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 23:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Anyone in this thread think the President should be threatening to withdraw federal funds from a University on twitter because despite being committed to holding an event for an individual they cancelled it for his safety (after legit violence occurred)? Or did this already get discussed? Anybody in this thread want to defend threatening to withdraw legit peaceful discourse from a University, despite being committed to holding an event for an individual? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem more upset about a presidential tweet than masked protestors setting a campus on fire. Like oh God he tweeted the same kind of reactionary shit he's been doing for years, but you know ehh torching universities is hardly newsworthy. Lets not pretend this is a new thing. College campuses are full of young folks that are willing to protest and fight for their beliefs, happened during Vietnam, happened during the civil rights movements. On all sides people have protested both violently and peacefully. College campuses have usually been at the center of it precisely because they try to encourage free thought that goes against the mainstream, regardless of whether the mainstream is on the left or the right. @Bio, Don't throw the hypocrisy stone at the left when we all live in glass houses.
this is a surprisingly good argument for why the administrators of UC Berkeley shouldve had the moral courage to not cancel the event
|
On February 03 2017 00:10 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:05 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 02 2017 23:57 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On February 02 2017 23:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Anyone in this thread think the President should be threatening to withdraw federal funds from a University on twitter because despite being committed to holding an event for an individual they cancelled it for his safety (after legit violence occurred)? Or did this already get discussed? I feel like this is an instance where it might be more productive to try to form a dialogue about what's actually happening at campuses lately (I'm not gonna pretend I'm an expert, but I have read/listened to a decent bit of stuff about it lately and it's worrisome - though I obviously lack any kind of first hand perspective). can you elaborate on your definition of productive what perspectives do you envision people seeing walking away here with that are +EV for humanity I really don't know, I just don't think that attacking Trump over this tweet makes sense. I guess some kind of acknowledgement from the left that this is a problem and what to do about it? As I said, really don't know and I basically only know enough about the problem to get myself into trouble trying to comment about it haha...
This wouldn't even be an issue if it was recognized as an actual problem. I'm half expecting a response along the lines of denying that it's a widespread problem, that is is very bankrupt culturally, and that most responses up to now have been of the muted "we condemn all violence especially from Trump supporters" variety.
On February 03 2017 00:29 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 23:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Anyone in this thread think the President should be threatening to withdraw federal funds from a University on twitter because despite being committed to holding an event for an individual they cancelled it for his safety (after legit violence occurred)? Or did this already get discussed? Anybody in this thread want to defend threatening to withdraw legit peaceful discourse from a University, despite being committed to holding an event for an individual? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem more upset about a presidential tweet than masked protestors setting a campus on fire. Like oh God he tweeted the same kind of reactionary shit he's been doing for years, but you know ehh torching universities is hardly newsworthy. Lets not pretend this is a new thing. College campuses are full of young folks that are willing to protest and fight for their beliefs, happened during Vietnam, happened during the civil rights movements. On all sides people have protested both violently and peacefully. College campuses have usually been at the center of it precisely because they try to encourage free thought that goes against the mainstream, regardless of whether the mainstream is on the left or the right. @Bio, Don't throw the hypocrisy stone at the left when we all live in glass houses.
Case in point of tacit acceptance. If you want a return to a unified front against silliness like presidential tweeting, don't launch into the historical justifications for violence. You want to progress as a society in the future, don't regress today. The only response you then deserve is that the tweets are justified if only for bringing attention to inconvenient truths. And canceling the event would serve to discourage free thought; campuses are known liberal bastions so everybody knows what bent of free thought is disallowed through threats of violence.
|
So i was actually at the protests (i wasn't protesting I just had class from 630-8 on campus so decided to check it out)... if you weren't there then it sounds like the Berkeley students were the ones engaging in most of the violence, but once I got there I realized the crowd had three distinct types of people for the most part:
1) students engaging in peaceful protest
2) some few masked "anarchists" (they call themselves that I think?) most of them not students
3) and the rest of the people literally just taking selfies, pictures, videos or streaming what was going on or hanging out with their friends.
The university allowed the event to happen on the principle of free speech but they knew that it was going to get people riled up and that it would get out of their hands.
What a lot of people don't understand about Berkeley and the Bay Area in general is how opposed to Trump and conservative values the people are over here. It's almost like another country... much different than the rest of America. People here are very political (my landlord was arrested in the 1960s here in Berkeley and always talks to me about US gov, equality, spirituality, among other things, just to give an example of how most people are).
Honestly it's pretty ridiculous. Most people here disagree with how crazy the protest got even though they agree with what they are pushing (anti-milo and anti-trump). Nobody should be hurt for their beliefs, political or religious (in extreme cases idk what should be done, but I feel it better to take it case by case).
My professor himself said something I agree with, which is that even if we don't agree with what is being said, and if what they say is "really out there", just let them talk and engage in civil discussion afterwards. If what they say really is bonkers then this indefensible viewpoint will not stand in argument and can be discredited.
But when peaceful discussion of ideas, even those we disagree with, are disallowed to happen as a result of violence, then it does not give anybody a chance to argue for their side...
And what you see here is that Milo gets what he wants: he gets to blame "the left" for what a few radical non students that have nothing to do with the university or the students are actually responsible for, and become a martyr of free speech, validating what he has said and not allowing his ideas to be refuted in discussion (this is what "leftists" would actually want).
What I somewhat have a problem with is the fact that the college republicans would go on to invite Milo while knowing that the event would most likely get rowdy and garner the attention of radicals, and some innocent people would get caught in the crossfire. I can see someone making the argument that it was needed to bring attention to the actual free speech problem in Berkeley where conservatives are repressed, but if, as my roommate just pointed out to me, a person was beat to death with shovels on the street, on Bancroft (don't know if this is true), was this worth it? If you know your event is going to bring violence (sadly), is it worth it? If someone dies at your event or as a result thereof, and it could have been avoided if you just called it off, was it worth it? Was it worth it to the person who died? I'm not too sure, although you can argue that living without free speech is not living at all, and then someone will say that you have a glorious life compared to an African so stop whining, blah blah blah...
The Bay Area in general and Berkeley specifically are just very culturally and politically different from the rest of the US. Heck, most of California's big cities are like that. I'd say being a "conservative", if you can be called that, is troubling here.
|
On February 03 2017 00:23 bardtown wrote:
He should be going after the police for allowing antifa to nigh on murder people in the streets.
yeah that's the thing I don't really understand here either...
I don't see how a University would be able to "defend" itself from such a situation. That's an issue for sure but not one the university is to blame for. What are they supposed to do there? Let the show move on and let people get seriously hurt?
If it's such a big issue that it happens all the time you probably have to treat it like we treat hooligans? Sorry but can't really come up with a better comparison
|
I had friends at the protests who confirm the above few posts. The anarchists appeared to be mostly outsiders looking to riot and had little to do with the peaceful protesters. It sucks that this is going to be warped to cast a bad light on any sort of protest, but that is what people in power who don't want to see their power threatened do. Either way Milo wins - he gets to demonize someone and come out smelling like roses.
Milo is going to cause violence anywhere he is allowed to speak, one way or another. That's his entire goal and he's very, very good at getting what he wants, because he doesn't care who gets caught in the crossfire. I'm not sure how to stop something like that as long as he's allowed to encourage violence toward individuals through public shaming, doxxing, and social violence, because the only thing that seems to stop him has been an anarchist riot, which isn't good either. Ugh.
|
On February 03 2017 00:35 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:29 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 03 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 23:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Anyone in this thread think the President should be threatening to withdraw federal funds from a University on twitter because despite being committed to holding an event for an individual they cancelled it for his safety (after legit violence occurred)? Or did this already get discussed? Anybody in this thread want to defend threatening to withdraw legit peaceful discourse from a University, despite being committed to holding an event for an individual? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem more upset about a presidential tweet than masked protestors setting a campus on fire. Like oh God he tweeted the same kind of reactionary shit he's been doing for years, but you know ehh torching universities is hardly newsworthy. Lets not pretend this is a new thing. College campuses are full of young folks that are willing to protest and fight for their beliefs, happened during Vietnam, happened during the civil rights movements. On all sides people have protested both violently and peacefully. College campuses have usually been at the center of it precisely because they try to encourage free thought that goes against the mainstream, regardless of whether the mainstream is on the left or the right. @Bio, Don't throw the hypocrisy stone at the left when we all live in glass houses. this is a surprisingly good argument for why the administrators of UC Berkeley shouldve had the moral courage to not cancel the event
Yes and then people get hurt (more than they did even after the event was cancelled), the University gets blamed for not cancelling, maybe even sued by someone, Idk. The University has an image to uphold, and they would rather put "safety" before "ideals" I guess. If they didn't cancel the event you would have someone saying "the administrators of UC Berkeley should've had the [moral] courage to cancel the event"
|
On February 03 2017 00:39 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:23 bardtown wrote:
He should be going after the police for allowing antifa to nigh on murder people in the streets. yeah that's the thing I don't really understand here either... I don't see how a University would be able to "defend" itself from such a situation. That's an issue for sure but not one the university is to blame for. What are they supposed to do there? Let the show move on and let get people seriously hurt? If it's such a big issue that it happens all the time you probably have to treat it like we treat hooligans? Sorry but can't really come up with a better comparison
Yeah I'm really struggling to see what the university did wrong here unless it somehow comes out that they were negligent in preventing the disruptive parts of the protest, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Even if they sanctioned the protest a non-violent protest is as much free speech as anything else.
It doubly so makes sense to cancel considering a pro-Milo person shot someone at a protest just a week ago.
Legallord (I think?) mentioned before about creating all sorts of twitter accounts to make fake outcries (or something along those lines), but equally a big a problem is outsiders inciting violence at protests and that's a pretty real and dangerous threat that can come from all sides (even law enforcement).
|
On February 03 2017 00:44 tedster wrote:
I had friends at the protests who confirm the above few posts. The anarchists appeared to be mostly outsiders looking to riot and had little to do with the peaceful protesters. It sucks that this is going to be warped to cast a bad light on any sort of protest, but that is what people in power who don't want to see their power threatened do. Either way Milo wins - he gets to demonize someone and come out smelling like roses.
Milo is going to cause violence anywhere he is allowed to speak, one way or another. That's his entire goal and he's very, very good at getting what he wants, because he doesn't care who gets caught in the crossfire. I'm not sure how to stop something like that as long as he's allowed to encourage violence toward individuals through public shaming, doxxing, and social violence, because the only thing that seems to stop him has been an anarchist riot, which isn't good either. Ugh.
i mean the whole point milo and his supporters are trying to prove is that the amount of people trying to "stop" him from speaking already demonstrates cultural weakness that should be re-evaluated/eliminated
its troubling that you still seem to think its desirable to "stop" him from simply speaking
|
On February 03 2017 00:35 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:29 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 03 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 23:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Anyone in this thread think the President should be threatening to withdraw federal funds from a University on twitter because despite being committed to holding an event for an individual they cancelled it for his safety (after legit violence occurred)? Or did this already get discussed? Anybody in this thread want to defend threatening to withdraw legit peaceful discourse from a University, despite being committed to holding an event for an individual? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem more upset about a presidential tweet than masked protestors setting a campus on fire. Like oh God he tweeted the same kind of reactionary shit he's been doing for years, but you know ehh torching universities is hardly newsworthy. Lets not pretend this is a new thing. College campuses are full of young folks that are willing to protest and fight for their beliefs, happened during Vietnam, happened during the civil rights movements. On all sides people have protested both violently and peacefully. College campuses have usually been at the center of it precisely because they try to encourage free thought that goes against the mainstream, regardless of whether the mainstream is on the left or the right. @Bio, Don't throw the hypocrisy stone at the left when we all live in glass houses. this is a surprisingly good argument for why the administrators of UC Berkeley shouldve had the moral courage to not cancel the event
If I was an official at Berkeley I would shut the event down without hesitation once it began to turn violent. You dont know the people inciting the violence or their intentions and as a person responsible for the well being of students I would place priority on life and limb over free speech any day. There is no reason they cant reschedule and plan for additional security another day.
How would you describe to a parent of a student who was injured why you just couldnt cancel, and how would you as that parent react to the answer of, "we have to protect free speech". I personally would say go fuck yourself I'll see you in court for knowingly endangering the life of my kid.
I'm sure that whether you are or arent a parent you can understand
|
On February 03 2017 00:47 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:35 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 03 2017 00:29 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 03 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 23:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Anyone in this thread think the President should be threatening to withdraw federal funds from a University on twitter because despite being committed to holding an event for an individual they cancelled it for his safety (after legit violence occurred)? Or did this already get discussed? Anybody in this thread want to defend threatening to withdraw legit peaceful discourse from a University, despite being committed to holding an event for an individual? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem more upset about a presidential tweet than masked protestors setting a campus on fire. Like oh God he tweeted the same kind of reactionary shit he's been doing for years, but you know ehh torching universities is hardly newsworthy. Lets not pretend this is a new thing. College campuses are full of young folks that are willing to protest and fight for their beliefs, happened during Vietnam, happened during the civil rights movements. On all sides people have protested both violently and peacefully. College campuses have usually been at the center of it precisely because they try to encourage free thought that goes against the mainstream, regardless of whether the mainstream is on the left or the right. @Bio, Don't throw the hypocrisy stone at the left when we all live in glass houses. this is a surprisingly good argument for why the administrators of UC Berkeley shouldve had the moral courage to not cancel the event If I was an official at Berkeley I would shut the event down without hesitation once it began to turn violent. You dont know the people inciting the violence or their intentions and as a person responsible for the well being of students I would place priority on life and limb over free speech any day. There is no reason they cant reschedule and plan for additional security another day. How would you describe to a parent of a student who was injured why you just couldnt cancel, and how would you as that parent react to the answer of, "we have to protect free speech". I personally would say go fuck yourself I'll see you in court for knowingly endangering the life of my kid. I'm sure that whether you are or arent a parent you can understand
i agree with all of this
its just that when you say " College campuses have usually been at the center of it precisely because they try to encourage free thought that goes against the mainstream, regardless of whether the mainstream is on the left or the right." it sounds like, from some sort of idealistic perspective, it wouldve demonstrated moral courage to not "negotiate with terrorists" or something along those lines
but of course protecting lives is pretty much the best rationale for shutting down the event
|
I mean, if someone chucks at molotov at Milo on stage I think he'd find his ideals cold comfort.
If UCB refused to allow Milo to talk from day 1, it makes sense to blame them.
If UCB canceled the event as soon as people started peacefully protesting, it makes sense to blame them (as far as I know even Milo sanctions peaceful protest at his speeches).
If UCB canceled the event after, as Danglars said, firebombings, I would blame the firebombers. If they protected the firebombers or didn't expel them if they turned out to be students, that would be another thing, but there's 0 evidence for that.
Brainwashing all students into not being firebombers would 1) not be possible 2) not even protect from outsiders doing it and 3) be entirely against Milo's ideals, funnily enough.
|
On February 03 2017 00:38 Danglars wrote:
Case in point of tacit acceptance. If you want a return to a unified front against silliness like presidential tweeting, don't launch into the historical justifications for violence. You want to progress as a society in the future, don't regress today. The only response you then deserve is that the tweets are justified if only for bringing attention to inconvenient truths. And canceling the event would serve to discourage free thought; campuses are known liberal bastions so everybody knows what bent of free thought is disallowed through threats of violence.
could you acknowledge that it wasn't just threats of violence, but actual violence, not by students or those affiliated with the college, but by antifa extremists?
or is the narrative different in your head
could you explicitly describe what you think the university administration should've done differently?
|
What universities should do is use law enforcement to completely lock down the area where Milo will be speaking with a heavy police presence so as to ensure that he gets to speak. This probably means moving the protesters further away from the venue and moving ticketing admittance further from the venue as well. And just once, someone needs to have the balls to send in the riot crew to clean out the violent protesters. I think that the hesitation to do this has created a dangerously false sense of security for the rioters.
|
Yes let's answer all things with flash bangs and tear gas and full riot gear that's going so swell here in Portland really shutting people up.
/s just in case (edit)
|
On February 03 2017 00:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:10 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On February 03 2017 00:05 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 02 2017 23:57 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On February 02 2017 23:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Anyone in this thread think the President should be threatening to withdraw federal funds from a University on twitter because despite being committed to holding an event for an individual they cancelled it for his safety (after legit violence occurred)? Or did this already get discussed? I feel like this is an instance where it might be more productive to try to form a dialogue about what's actually happening at campuses lately (I'm not gonna pretend I'm an expert, but I have read/listened to a decent bit of stuff about it lately and it's worrisome - though I obviously lack any kind of first hand perspective). can you elaborate on your definition of productive what perspectives do you envision people seeing walking away here with that are +EV for humanity I really don't know, I just don't think that attacking Trump over this tweet makes sense. I guess some kind of acknowledgement from the left that this is a problem and what to do about it? As I said, really don't know and I basically only know enough about the problem to get myself into trouble trying to comment about it haha... This wouldn't even be an issue if it was recognized as an actual problem. I'm half expecting a response along the lines of denying that it's a widespread problem, that is is very bankrupt culturally, and that most responses up to now have been of the muted "we condemn all violence especially from Trump supporters" variety. Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:29 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 03 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 23:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Anyone in this thread think the President should be threatening to withdraw federal funds from a University on twitter because despite being committed to holding an event for an individual they cancelled it for his safety (after legit violence occurred)? Or did this already get discussed? Anybody in this thread want to defend threatening to withdraw legit peaceful discourse from a University, despite being committed to holding an event for an individual? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem more upset about a presidential tweet than masked protestors setting a campus on fire. Like oh God he tweeted the same kind of reactionary shit he's been doing for years, but you know ehh torching universities is hardly newsworthy. Lets not pretend this is a new thing. College campuses are full of young folks that are willing to protest and fight for their beliefs, happened during Vietnam, happened during the civil rights movements. On all sides people have protested both violently and peacefully. College campuses have usually been at the center of it precisely because they try to encourage free thought that goes against the mainstream, regardless of whether the mainstream is on the left or the right. @Bio, Don't throw the hypocrisy stone at the left when we all live in glass houses. Case in point of tacit acceptance. If you want a return to a unified front against silliness like presidential tweeting, don't launch into the historical justifications for violence. You want to progress as a society in the future, don't regress today. The only response you then deserve is that the tweets are justified if only for bringing attention to inconvenient truths. And canceling the event would serve to discourage free thought; campuses are known liberal bastions so everybody knows what bent of free thought is disallowed through threats of violence.
Please dont take my comments regarding the historical frequency of protesting as a sign that I condone violence by anyone regardless of the goal behind the violence. I was merely commenting on your feeling that the protests themselves were not being covered in an appropriate manner.
All I was trying to get at is that protests at schools aren't a shocker so you shouldn't be caught off guard by the relatively low level of surprise at the fact that it happened. Cancelling the even serves to protect the lives of the students. Milo is free to reschedule and there has been no indication from the school that they would not be willing to have him, likely under better security.
Again, as some others have pointed out the threat of violence (and actual violence) did not come from the university administrators, and possibly not even the students, so your criticisms of the university, along with trumps, are inappropriate.
|
On February 03 2017 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
What universities should do is use law enforcement to completely lock down the area where Milo will be speaking with a heavy police presence so as to ensure that he gets to speak. This probably means moving the protesters further away from the venue and moving ticketing admittance further from the venue as well. And just once, someone needs to have the balls to send in the riot crew to clean out the violent protesters. I think that the hesitation to do this has created a dangerously false sense of security for the rioters.
If they had expected the violent response that they received, they likely would have prepared better security measures, but it doesn't seem like this was the case.
|
It's irrational for Trump to blame Berkeley and threaten to withdraw funding. The only thing you could say is that they should have had a huge police presence but that assumes it would have been prudent for them to divert resources that way. It also assumes they should have foreseen this.
|
On February 03 2017 00:38 JungleTerrain wrote:
What I somewhat have a problem with is the fact that the college republicans would go on to invite Milo while knowing that the event would most likely get rowdy and garner the attention of radicals, and some innocent people would get caught in the crossfire. I can see someone making the argument that it was needed to bring attention to the actual free speech problem in Berkeley where conservatives are repressed, but if, as my roommate just pointed out to me, a person was beat to death with shovels on the street, on Bancroft (don't know if this is true), was this worth it? If you know your event is going to bring violence (sadly), is it worth it? If someone dies at your event or as a result thereof, and it could have been avoided if you just called it off, was it worth it? Was it worth it to the person who died? I'm not too sure, although you can argue that living without free speech is not living at all, and then someone will say that you have a glorious life compared to an African so stop whining, blah blah blah...
The Bay Area in general and Berkeley specifically are just very culturally and politically different from the rest of the US. Heck, most of California's big cities are like that. I'd say being a "conservative", if you can be called that, is troubling here.
Helpful to know you understand the counterargument to not inviting people like Milo.
There's a school of thought that says you don't idly go along with repression like threats of violence, by simply not saying your contrary views. At the march to Selma, Alabama everybody knew that there would be violence and people might die. MLK and others thought it was worth it for voting rights etc. Free speech rights are worth it too. Until a conservative speaker at a publically funded university may speak his mind and not fear for his or her safety.
Trump gave a speech just down my street a ways in a California, and protestors were beating up Trump supporters in the street. Police were overwhelmed. Sucks. Should he write off sections of America where leftists or anarchist infiltrators will perpetrate acts of violence against peaceful assembly? Certainly not! No more than if Berkeley were a republican haven and the wildest socialist or communist gave a speech.
On February 03 2017 00:44 tedster wrote:
I had friends at the protests who confirm the above few posts. The anarchists appeared to be mostly outsiders looking to riot and had little to do with the peaceful protesters. It sucks that this is going to be warped to cast a bad light on any sort of protest, but that is what people in power who don't want to see their power threatened do. Either way Milo wins - he gets to demonize someone and come out smelling like roses.
Milo is going to cause violence anywhere he is allowed to speak, one way or another. That's his entire goal and he's very, very good at getting what he wants, because he doesn't care who gets caught in the crossfire. I'm not sure how to stop something like that as long as he's allowed to encourage violence toward individuals through public shaming, doxxing, and social violence, because the only thing that seems to stop him has been an anarchist riot, which isn't good either. Ugh.
Clearly we need ten more Milos until people give up using "where he's allowed to speak" to reference organized events on public grounds. And please, let's dispense with "he is going to cause violence" bit when he is just speaking into a microphone and the crazies of this country are causing violence against him.
"but that is what people in power who don't want to see their power threatened do." So you allege these purportedly anarchist protestors were hired by those in power. Surely you can do better.
"Allowed to encourage violence" the hell you on about, son? You're grasping at straws here with the seven degrees removed "well I didn't like what he said and clearly people unlike me would take that as justification for violence so Milo encourages violence." Tedster, I get the idea you're pro-violence given how much you excuse the people that do it and ascribe it to conspiracy, and how much stretching of the truth you use to assign moral equivalency to speakers.
On February 03 2017 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
What universities should do is use law enforcement to completely lock down the area where Milo will be speaking with a heavy police presence so as to ensure that he gets to speak. This probably means moving the protesters further away from the venue and moving ticketing admittance further from the venue as well. And just once, someone needs to have the balls to send in the riot crew to clean out the violent protesters. I think that the hesitation to do this has created a dangerously false sense of security for the rioters. If they had expected the violent response that they received, they likely would have prepared better security measures, but it doesn't seem like this was the case.
It can't be both that everybody expects violence and nobody expects violence. This is Berkeley not Hillsdale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
