|
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 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.
So your solution to the protesters is to dramatically escalate the situation with use of Riot police that the violent protesters are probably already happy to face off against?
What do you expect to happen when you have riot police cracking down harshly on a protest of 1500 where 100-150 are causing violence?
|
On February 03 2017 00:54 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +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?
danglars mind responding to this?
|
On February 03 2017 01:15 Logo 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. So your solution to the protesters is to dramatically escalate the situation with use of Riot police that the violent protesters are probably already happy to face off against? What do you expect to happen when you have riot police cracking down harshly on a protest of 1500 where 100-150 are causing violence?
Something more closely resembling law and order? The status quo is unacceptable.
|
On February 03 2017 01:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 01:15 Logo wrote: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. So your solution to the protesters is to dramatically escalate the situation with use of Riot police that the violent protesters are probably already happy to face off against? What do you expect to happen when you have riot police cracking down harshly on a protest of 1500 where 100-150 are causing violence? Something more closely resembling law and order? The status quo is unacceptable.
So you're willing to support the rule of law and the enforcement of it regardless of the costs and consequences of that enforcement?
|
On February 03 2017 01:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 01:15 Logo wrote: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. So your solution to the protesters is to dramatically escalate the situation with use of Riot police that the violent protesters are probably already happy to face off against? What do you expect to happen when you have riot police cracking down harshly on a protest of 1500 where 100-150 are causing violence? Something more closely resembling law and order? The status quo is unacceptable.
declaring that the status quo is unacceptable isnt helpful without a realistic roadmap to improving it
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh i just looked at this milo character. why would anyone listen to this guy speak
i would not deign to protest this guy.
|
On February 03 2017 01:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 01:15 Logo wrote: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. So your solution to the protesters is to dramatically escalate the situation with use of Riot police that the violent protesters are probably already happy to face off against? What do you expect to happen when you have riot police cracking down harshly on a protest of 1500 where 100-150 are causing violence? Something more closely resembling law and order? The status quo is unacceptable.
Lets break out the water canons then while we are at it.
You're so concerned with protecting Milo's free speech that you forgot about the free speech protections of everyone else....
|
On February 03 2017 01:21 oneofthem wrote:
uh i just looked at this milo character. why would anyone listen to this guy speak
i would not deign to protest this guy.
is this anything but empty rhetoric to feel superior to all involved? just wondering
|
xDaunt reminds me (in this thread) of the old white men who want to return America back to the 50s and 60s. And some people in here have a solid head on their shoulders, but seem to miss the point at some junction when discussing politics. As of last month, reality has changed. The last year showed us that what we think we know about politics, means nothing. We are living in unprecedented times within America (within the last 30). Therefore, we must be open to all sorts of things happening that probably seemed taboo not too long ago. You can't use rational and sound logic. You are not dealing with it. In order to provoke change or discussion, your tactics and methods of communicating must change.
|
On February 03 2017 00:54 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Quote what I thought evoked tacit acceptance if you want to go further on that line. It's only the manner and substance of the quoted argument that shows acceptance, and not simply that there was a protest and it's all narrative from there.
xDaunt already gave one sufficient idea. With better policing and foresight, we'd have the arrests and reports of "7 students arrested" or "55 students arrested" instead of eyewitnesses that likely couldn't recognize classmates under masks. You might understand that even if only a third of violent protestors at Berkeley were students, they have ample reason to conceal their identity from eyewitnesses.
|
On February 03 2017 01:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
xDaunt reminds me (in this thread) of the old white men who want to return America back to the 50s and 60s. And some people in here have a solid head on their shoulders, but seem to miss the point at some junction when discussing politics. As of last month, reality has changed. The last year showed us that what we think we know about politics, means nothing. We are living in unprecedented times within America (within the last 30). Therefore, we must be open to all sorts of things happening that probably seemed taboo not too long ago. You can't use rational and sound logic. You are not dealing with it. In order to provoke change or discussion, your tactics and methods of communicating must change.
i dont see how your communication skills are better
id say from what youve demonstrated here they seem worse
|
On February 03 2017 01:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:54 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: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? Quote what I thought evoked tacit acceptance if you want to go further on that line. It's only the manner and substance of the quoted argument that shows acceptance, and not simply that there was a protest and it's all narrative from there. xDaunt already gave one sufficient idea. With better policing and foresight, we'd have the arrests and reports of "7 students arrested" or "55 students arrested" instead of eyewitnesses that likely couldn't recognize classmates under masks. You might understand that even if only a third of violent protestors at Berkeley were students, they have ample reason to conceal their identity from eyewitnesses.
so overall youre mainly alleging negligence and bad foresight more than anything else? is that a reason to defund cal?
|
On February 03 2017 01:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
xDaunt reminds me (in this thread) of the old white men who want to return America back to the 50s and 60s. And some people in here have a solid head on their shoulders, but seem to miss the point at some junction when discussing politics. As of last month, reality has changed. The last year showed us that what we think we know about politics, means nothing. We are living in unprecedented times within America (within the last 30). Therefore, we must be open to all sorts of things happening that probably seemed taboo not too long ago. You can't use rational and sound logic. You are not dealing with it. In order to provoke change or discussion, your tactics and methods of communicating must change.
I disagree.
I think what has happened an insulation of communities (similar to the HuffPo article that Danglars posted not too long ago), which has lead to a long build-up of resentment on both sides. its not that the methods of communicating must change as much as we need to learn to communicate across the aisle again. Look at the rhetoric from 90% of politicians, especially the more junior representatives. They are all about the hard line, and us vs. them mentality, all because we stopped communicating with each other. Story goes that there used to be huge bar-b-cues that all kinds of folks from congress would go to regardless of affiliation. that doesn't happen anymore. Its not just about being open to new taboo things and just letting it happen. We as individuals need to reach out to the people we know in our own personal lives and instead of trying to convince them that they are wrong, just show them your point of view and accept that theirs is different.
Sorry that was a little rambly but you get the gist.
|
I guess one might also blame UCB for not enough security. But there's a big gap between saying security was too lax and saying UCB doesn't let people practice free speech (which is the official stance of the POTUS, mind you). What makes the Trump view more mind-boggling is that he LOVES talking about lax security and weakness, and this would be a perfect time for that too.
Unless there's a belief they specifically made security lax to allow for these firebombings or another violent outbreak and cancel the talk. Given what Trump has said in the past he might lend credence to this idea, actually.
|
On February 03 2017 01:29 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 01:25 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 00:54 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: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? Quote what I thought evoked tacit acceptance if you want to go further on that line. It's only the manner and substance of the quoted argument that shows acceptance, and not simply that there was a protest and it's all narrative from there. xDaunt already gave one sufficient idea. With better policing and foresight, we'd have the arrests and reports of "7 students arrested" or "55 students arrested" instead of eyewitnesses that likely couldn't recognize classmates under masks. You might understand that even if only a third of violent protestors at Berkeley were students, they have ample reason to conceal their identity from eyewitnesses. so overall youre mainly alleging negligence and bad foresight more than anything else? is that a reason to defund cal?
I'll give you time to respond to the substance of former posts instead of taking the replies of other people's posts to be equal to my full argument going forward. I think one guy going too far in excusing violence and another basically spending an hour on why Milo deserves it for every fifteen minutes he notes that he's saddened by the overall situation. If you want to transition to defending or attacking Berkeley's abilities to protect unpopular opinions expressed at events on their campus, advance your take in a paragraph. If you want to talk about what the cultural crusader Trump-Bannon can do to support peaceful speakers and the free speech rights routinely violated on college campuses, I'm more interested in how much you've analyzed it and if ten more speeches with ten more masked arsonists would change your mind.
|
So incredibly petty of Trump. This shows the risk his voters have taken on for our country.
U.S. President Donald Trump labeled a refugee swap deal with Australia "dumb" on Thursday after a Washington Post report of an acrimonious telephone call with Australia's prime minister threatened a rare rift in ties between the two staunch allies.
The Post reported that Trump described the resettlement plan as "the worst deal ever" and accused Australia of trying to export the "next Boston bombers". It said the call had been scheduled to last an hour but Trump cut it short after 25 minutes when Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull tried to turn to subjects such as Syria.
...
Turnbull refused to confirm the Post report that Trump, who had earlier spoken to world leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, had angrily told him that the call was "the worst so far".
...
As reports of the conversation hit headlines on both sides of the world, Trump tweeted shortly before midnight in Washington: "Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal."
Yahoo
|
On February 03 2017 01:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 01:29 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 03 2017 01:25 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 00:54 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: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? Quote what I thought evoked tacit acceptance if you want to go further on that line. It's only the manner and substance of the quoted argument that shows acceptance, and not simply that there was a protest and it's all narrative from there. xDaunt already gave one sufficient idea. With better policing and foresight, we'd have the arrests and reports of "7 students arrested" or "55 students arrested" instead of eyewitnesses that likely couldn't recognize classmates under masks. You might understand that even if only a third of violent protestors at Berkeley were students, they have ample reason to conceal their identity from eyewitnesses. so overall youre mainly alleging negligence and bad foresight more than anything else? is that a reason to defund cal? I'll give you time to respond to the substance of former posts instead of taking the replies of other people's posts to be equal to my full argument going forward. I think one guy going too far in excusing violence and another basically spending an hour on why Milo deserves it for every fifteen minutes he notes that he's saddened by the overall situation. If you want to transition to defending or attacking Berkeley's abilities to protect unpopular opinions expressed at events on their campus, advance your take in a paragraph. If you want to talk about what the cultural crusader Trump-Bannon can do to support peaceful speakers and the free speech rights routinely violated on college campuses, I'm more interested in how much you've analyzed it and if ten more speeches with ten more masked arsonists would change your mind.
you read too much into my words and i wish youd respond to them at face value. all i really want is your stance in your words summarized in one post. if you think i dont deserve such a response for insufficient effort on my part, so be it i suppose, but i really did just want clarifications on your stances w.r.t. the specific questions i asked.
that said im on mobile and dont have time for a detailed response for awhile, i may or may not do as you wish later
|
Why on earth would a university invite Milo? To give a lecture about online harassment, misoginy and hatred?
It's not like the guy ever did anything else..
|
On February 03 2017 01:21 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 01:19 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 01:15 Logo wrote: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. So your solution to the protesters is to dramatically escalate the situation with use of Riot police that the violent protesters are probably already happy to face off against? What do you expect to happen when you have riot police cracking down harshly on a protest of 1500 where 100-150 are causing violence? Something more closely resembling law and order? The status quo is unacceptable. So you're willing to support the rule of law and the enforcement of it regardless of the costs and consequences of that enforcement?
xDaunt was the guy who said something along the lines of "you have to be willing to enforce every law even up to potentially killing the people on the other side or else it's not a meaningful law" or something along those lines iirc... or was that someone else from the more conservative people in here?
|
On February 03 2017 01:26 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 01:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
xDaunt reminds me (in this thread) of the old white men who want to return America back to the 50s and 60s. And some people in here have a solid head on their shoulders, but seem to miss the point at some junction when discussing politics. As of last month, reality has changed. The last year showed us that what we think we know about politics, means nothing. We are living in unprecedented times within America (within the last 30). Therefore, we must be open to all sorts of things happening that probably seemed taboo not too long ago. You can't use rational and sound logic. You are not dealing with it. In order to provoke change or discussion, your tactics and methods of communicating must change. i dont see how your communication skills are better id say from what youve demonstrated here they seem worse
I lurk. Rarely do I engage in the topics because they move too fast. By the time I've responded, the thread is moved and I'm not inclined to go back 5+ pages to make a point. If you would like a more succinct demonstration, then I'll be more than happy to oblige after my appointment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
