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 00:38 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.
If you are referring to me as the person who "went to far in excusing violence" I think you tried to infer a little too much from my original post, and completely missed my point. As I said before I dont condone violence at all, the fact that no one was arrested should be an embarrassment for the campus, and it is something that the parents of the students who attend should not accept.
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
I welcome it. "So overall you're mainly alleging x & y" is essentially turning my argument into a one-line summary and is an insufficient launchpad for "does this summary represent due cause for withdrawing funds." Sorry, it's a big topic and I'd rather not be misunderstood from the context of my replies to others given how quickly this thread moves among the maybe seven major points on not chilling free speech on public university campuses. It's certainly unjust to the peaceful protestors and the peaceful Milo-haters that attend and can abide sitting quietly through the speech to ask him or accuse him afterwards and I certainly don't want to come off unsympathetic to them by just focusing and refocusing in the game of topic bingo.
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.
fair enough; if youd like to demonstrate your communication skills, all id like you to do is to link a past discussion in which youve changed somebodys mind about something.
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.
fair enough; if youd like to demonstrate your communication skills, all id like you to do is to link a past discussion in which youve changed somebodys mind about something.
On February 02 2017 23:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So when does the GOP start to realize that everything this man does will affect them as well.
Arnie strikes back
I'm 95% sure there will be a salty Trump tweet saying he's the most overrated action hero in a couple of hours. This is also a fight Trump can never win since Arnie is the embodiment of the self made American Dream.
On February 02 2017 17:23 nojok wrote: Are there any Republican congrssmen who took some distance with Trump since he's elected? Is it a thing in the US to try to differentiate oneself from the government even if it's from your party? I can't believe none of the hundreds of Republican congressmen did not state he did not support at least some of Trump's politics, specially that many of them were not kind to him during the primary. I've tried to search for it but it's hard given the insane amount of articles.
I don't know of any who've shifted their position SINCE the election. there are several that distanced themselves from Trump before the election and have always been at a distance. ryan is somewhat cooperative but uneasy. mccain is generally opposed.
it certainly does happen some in the US to differentiate from ones' party, at least somewhat. it's more common when it's between different houses of congress or different branches of government. There are a number of republicans who've spoken against some of the stuff trump does; several did so before the election, and many did in the primary before he won.
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.
fair enough; if youd like to demonstrate your communication skills, all id like you to do is to link a past discussion in which youve changed somebodys mind about something.
And how does this belong here?
he is positing lack of communication skills on the part of xdaunt; id like to see what he considers an instance of himself being a better example. this is potentially a line of discourse that might improve the discourse of this thread in general, no? im personally a fan of metadiscussion
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.
If you are referring to me as the person who "went to far in excusing violence" I think you tried to infer a little too much from my original post, and completely missed my point. As I said before I dont condone violence at all, the fact that no one was arrested should be an embarrassment for the campus, and it is something that the parents of the students who attend should not accept.
It's not the campus' job to arrest people, I'd assume so long as they had police and security on site the arrests (or lack of them) would be their call.
Also this whole topic makes me sick about how many people incorrectly cite the first amendment. Free Speech as a societal value is a very important one, but it has nothing to do with the constitutional right granted by the first amendment. No one violated anyone's first amendment rights here.
I'm 95% sure there will be a salty Trump tweet saying he's the most overrated action hero in a couple of hours
Arnie has said a lot of negative things about Trump and still gotten no negative tweets. Maybe he's immune?
If he shit talks Arnie he shit talks The Apprentice, and thats something he probably values just below his own children.
Watch the first vid. He did shit talk the Apprentice and Arnold for bad ratings. At the national prayer breakfast lol.
'They hired a big movie star to replace me. The ratings went way down the tubes, it's been a total disaster. I wanna just pray for Arnold if we can for those ratings,ok'
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?
I don't know if I said that specifically, but I generally agree with the sentiment. Society breaks down when the rule of law is not adhered to. Strict enforcement of the law is necessary.
On February 03 2017 01:43 Biff The Understudy wrote: 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..
Because Milo is a legitimate emerging media star and one of the most important counter-cultural figures of his generation. Whether you agree with him or hate his message is irrelevant.
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.
If you are referring to me as the person who "went to far in excusing violence" I think you tried to infer a little too much from my original post, and completely missed my point. As I said before I dont condone violence at all, the fact that no one was arrested should be an embarrassment for the campus, and it is something that the parents of the students who attend should not accept.
It's not the campus' job to arrest people, I'd assume so long as they had police and security on site the arrests (or lack of them) would be their call.
Also this whole topic makes me sick about how many people incorrectly cite the first amendment. Free Speech as a societal value is a very important one, but it has nothing to do with the constitutional right granted by the first amendment. No one violated anyone's first amendment rights here.
But it is their job to ensure the safety of their students, and if they knew someone as controversial as Milo was going (specifically when looking at the views of their own student body) they should have been better prepared, and ready to call in law enforcement to respond to any threats of violence. Does anyone know how long it took for police to respond? or campus safety for that matter? I haven't found anything about it yet.
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
The more troubling thing I find is there's a post-KKK group that love listening to him and the protests he keeps sparking are giving him more exposure and followers. He incites hatred on both sides of politics towards either himself or others. I recently sat down and watched one of his talks... He's eloquent, calm and is a master at handling the hecklers he baits out. The problem is he's literally just playing on the prejudices of ignorant bigots and spreading a heavily biased narrative. The comment section was full of how they loved how he spoke 'facts'/'truth' when he was blatantly exaggerating/lying and they were eating it up because it aligned with their hatred of muslims. He really just needs to be ignored completely and let the crazies go listen to him if they want. His ex-boss Bannon is the real problem.
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?
I don't know if I said that specifically, but I generally agree with the sentiment. Society breaks down when the rule of law is not adhered to. Strict enforcement of the law is necessary.
You're a bit like Trump in that you keep surprising me with creative, new ways of triggering anyone who's not in your lunatic fringe world. Society does just fine when you don't need to kill or threaten to kill people to enforce laws. Most societies have advanced well beyond that being necessary. I guess drug laws outside the Philippines just aren't 'meaningful' enough for you?
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.
If you are referring to me as the person who "went to far in excusing violence" I think you tried to infer a little too much from my original post, and completely missed my point. As I said before I dont condone violence at all, the fact that no one was arrested should be an embarrassment for the campus, and it is something that the parents of the students who attend should not accept.
It's not the campus' job to arrest people, I'd assume so long as they had police and security on site the arrests (or lack of them) would be their call.
Also this whole topic makes me sick about how many people incorrectly cite the first amendment. Free Speech as a societal value is a very important one, but it has nothing to do with the constitutional right granted by the first amendment. No one violated anyone's first amendment rights here.
But it is their job to ensure the safety of their students, and if they knew someone as controversial as Milo was going (specifically when looking at the views of their own student body) they should have been better prepared, and ready to call in law enforcement to respond to any threats of violence. Does anyone know how long it took for police to respond? or campus safety for that matter? I haven't found anything about it yet.
No, but in the absence of data I'm not going to go and blame a potentially innocent person.
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
The more troubling thing I find is there's a post-KKK group that love listening to him and the protests he keeps sparking are giving him more exposure and followers. He incites hatred on both sides of politics towards either himself or others. I recently sat down and watched one of his talks... He's eloquent, calm and is a master at handling the hecklers he baits out. The problem is he's literally just playing on the prejudices of ignorant bigots and spreading a heavily biased narrative. The comment section was full of how they loved how he spoke 'facts'/'truth' when he was blatantly exaggerating/lying and they were eating it up because it aligned with their hatred of muslims. He really just needs to be ignored completely and let the crazies go listen to him if they want. His ex-boss Bannon is the real problem.
all narratives are heavily biased
i have issues with the alt right but your apparent approach of discrediting them out of hand and claiming ignoring them is the solution is not one i find productive
EPT
