The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Major-Tom]

Honestly I am getting sick of how these threads always devolve into OMG THIS PROVES [INSERT LIBERAL IDEOLOGY HERE] IS EVIL.

In fairness, provocateurs and whatnot do show left-wing and right wing hypocrisy.

[Kardousa]

Guys, nation states is such a fun and novel game, right? Like, I said that all of my people had to wear silly hats, how entertaining. Isn't this game so much fun?

Edit: Post should be read in Stanley Parable narrator voice for maximum irony.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Guys nation states is such a fun and novel game, right? Like I said that all of my people had to wear silly hats, how entertaining. Isn't this game so much fun?

No, it isn't. It's hell. Run while you still can.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Guys nation states is such a fun and novel game, right? Like I said that all of my people had to wear silly hats, how entertaining. Isn't this game so much fun?

No, it isn't. It's hell. Run while you still can.

I think it's too late for him.

He posted his first post in NSG. Running is not an option anymore.

[Chessmistress]

Looks like the Dirty SJWs at Breitbart have struck again.

Yiannopoulos 'quits Breitbart News'

It was going to happen. His career as a conservative "provocateur" as he called himself went one subject too far.

Sic transit gloria mundi

Yeah, I know that I'm a venomous bitch, but that's too funny for not making some irony...

Eh, it's a bit of an irony, really, if you follow the story's origins.

He basically defended his having sex at 13-14 years of age with adult gay men as "well okay, I did have sex with them, but I chose to, I liked it, and I am pretty sure other 13 and 14 year olds who are in these situations, at least some, have the mental maturity to consent to sex with an adult". Some say he was sexually abused, but then he deflects that by going "well yea but who do you think is the predator in this case? I'd say the young person is" so that just kind of makes it worse.

Yeeeeeeah that doesn't go well in American media. Particularly conservative groups where the whole "if you have sex with people under 18 you're a fucking sick person" view is strong. Like I said a page or so ago, over here within conservative groups talking about sex with minors is verboten. You don't talk about it and you don't show a bit of softening to it.

You didn't get the full extent of my irony and its implications.
He told his experience was at 13 yo with a priest...
He also calls Trump: "daddy"...

And the full phrase is

"Pater Sancte, sic transit gloria mundi!" ("Holy Father, so passes worldly glory!")

These words were traditionally addressed to the pope, and served to him and to all people around as a reminder of the transitory nature of earthly honors...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You didn't get the full extent of my irony and its implications.
He told his experience was at 13 yo with a priest...
He also calls Trump: "daddy"...

And the full phrase is

"Pater Sancte, sic transit gloria mundi!" ("Holy Father, so passes worldly glory!")

These words were traditionally addressed to the pope, and served to him and to all people around as a reminder of the transitory nature of earthly honors...

Oh! That makes much more sense.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

He's opening his own media venture and still publishing his book.

Look, I don't agree with Milo politically at all, but honestly he was important in this presidential bid, he helped give a voice to young conservatives and librarians and has forever had an impact on their lives. This also in no way nullifies any of the points he made, as an idea or a fact will live on long after a speaker is dead.

What this does however signify is a split in the Republican party much like the split in the democratic party. Young vs. old.

[G-Tech Corporation]

He's opening his own media venture and still publishing his book.

Look, I don't agree with Milo politically at all, but honestly he was important in this presidential bid, he helped give a voice to young conservatives and librarians and has forever had an impact on their lives. This also in no way nullifies any of the points he made, as an idea or a fact will live on long after a speaker is dead.

What this does however signify is a split in the Republican party much like the split in the democratic party. Young vs. old.

Hah. As if Milo represents any young conservatives except internet trolls and the alt-right deluded.

[Chestaan]

He's opening his own media venture and still publishing his book.

Look, I don't agree with Milo politically at all, but honestly he was important in this presidential bid, he helped give a voice to young conservatives and librarians and has forever had an impact on their lives. This also in no way nullifies any of the points he made, as an idea or a fact will live on long after a speaker is dead.

What this does however signify is a split in the Republican party much like the split in the democratic party. Young vs. old.

I think it goes to prove what many already thought, that the right were only interested in him when he was useful to them. Some people were confused that conservatives would be so supportive of a gay man, but the only reason they were is because a) it could make them seem to not hate gay people and b) because Milo was massively self-loathing and often made attacks on the gay community.


Now he's become more of a liability than an asset and the conservatives have dropped him.

[G-Tech Corporation]

He's opening his own media venture and still publishing his book.

Look, I don't agree with Milo politically at all, but honestly he was important in this presidential bid, he helped give a voice to young conservatives and librarians and has forever had an impact on their lives. This also in no way nullifies any of the points he made, as an idea or a fact will live on long after a speaker is dead.

What this does however signify is a split in the Republican party much like the split in the democratic party. Young vs. old.

I think it goes to prove what many already thought, that the right were only interested in him when he was useful to them. Some people were confused that conservatives would be so supportive of a gay man, but the only reason they were is because a) it could make them seem to not hate gay people and b) because Milo was massively self-loathing and often made attacks on the gay community.


Now he's become more of a liability than an asset and the conservatives have dropped him.

That's a pretty ideologically narrow way to look at it. Most organizations, even political ones, tend to operate on an "accept first, disassociate if necessary" MO. Case in point, BLM and the several individuals that have expressed blatantly stupid/racist/inflammatory views.

[The Texan Union]

He's opening his own media venture and still publishing his book.

Look, I don't agree with Milo politically at all, but honestly he was important in this presidential bid, he helped give a voice to young conservatives and librarians and has forever had an impact on their lives. This also in no way nullifies any of the points he made, as an idea or a fact will live on long after a speaker is dead.

What this does however signify is a split in the Republican party much like the split in the democratic party. Young vs. old.

I think it goes to prove what many already thought, that the right were only interested in him when he was useful to them. Some people were confused that conservatives would be so supportive of a gay man, but the only reason they were is because a) it could make them seem to not hate gay people and b) because Milo was massively self-loathing and often made attacks on the gay community.


Now he's become more of a liability than an asset and the conservatives have dropped him.

It's not right to 1) assume all Republicans hate gays and 2) lump all conservatives with Republicans.

Plenty of conservatives have always despised Milo. I, for one, have never really liked him. I enjoyed watching him "pwn teh SJWs", but that was about it. He's an entertainer. The fact that people still take him seriously in any regard is why he's making national headlines. He was a conservative entertainer; a cartoon character that was always on a self-destructive path. But his goal was to spread conservatism, and he succeeded. He introduced me (inadvertently) to conservatives like Ben Shapiro, and for that I appreciate him.

Conservatives never dropped him because conservatives never picked him up. He's basically a living meme. And the Left made him popular, just like Pepe. The Democratic party has made conservatism edgy. Which annoys the living hell out of me.

[Liriena]

Looks like the Dirty SJWs at Breitbart have struck again.

Yiannopoulos 'quits Breitbart News'

I know I shouldn't. It's not what Mr Rogers would have wanted me to do.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut...

*happy dance*

[Liriena]

He's opening his own media venture and still publishing his book.

Look, I don't agree with Milo politically at all, but honestly he was important in this presidential bid, he helped give a voice to young conservatives and librarians and has forever had an impact on their lives. This also in no way nullifies any of the points he made, as an idea or a fact will live on long after a speaker is dead.

What this does however signify is a split in the Republican party much like the split in the democratic party. Young vs. old.

Hah. As if Milo represents any young conservatives except internet trolls and the alt-right deluded.

Indeed.

[Greater Beggnig]

Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate?

The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. The First Amendment isn't in the Constitution so that people could talk about the weather.

Is the protest not itself an example of people exercising their own freedom of speech?

Sure, but the moment you start destroying property and assaulting people you have crossed the line.

[Alvecia]

Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate?

The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. The First Amendment isn't in the Constitution so that people could talk about the weather.

I belive that rather specifically protects against government encroachment on free speech, not private citizen on private citizen

[Wallenburg]

He's opening his own media venture and still publishing his book.

Look, I don't agree with Milo politically at all, but honestly he was important in this presidential bid, he helped give a voice to young conservatives and librarians and has forever had an impact on their lives. This also in no way nullifies any of the points he made, as an idea or a fact will live on long after a speaker is dead.

What this does however signify is a split in the Republican party much like the split in the democratic party. Young vs. old.

I doubt that Mr. Yiannopoulos speaks for the average librarian. After all, the overwhelming majority of librarians is Democratic.

[New Grestin]

Fun Fact: Freedom of speech doesn't preclude people from their god-given right to tell you to fuck off.

Except when you're an Alt-Righter, then Free Speech is a liberal conspiracy to bring about sharia law.

[Liriena]

He's opening his own media venture and still publishing his book.

Look, I don't agree with Milo politically at all, but honestly he was important in this presidential bid, he helped give a voice to young conservatives and librarians and has forever had an impact on their lives. This also in no way nullifies any of the points he made, as an idea or a fact will live on long after a speaker is dead.

What this does however signify is a split in the Republican party much like the split in the democratic party. Young vs. old.

I doubt that Mr. Yiannopoulos speaks for the average librarian. After all, the overwhelming majority of librarians is Democratic.

Also, I'm pretty sure most young libertarians want nothing to do with Yiannopoulos. Specially when they have Gary Johnson being cute and zany.

[Liriena]

Fun Fact: Freedom of speech doesn't preclude people from their god-given right to tell you to fuck off.

Except when you're an Alt-Righter, then Free Speech is a liberal conspiracy to bring about sharia law.

Aye.

[Wallenburg]

Fun Fact: Freedom of speech doesn't preclude people from their god-given right to tell you to fuck off.

Except when you're an Alt-Righter, then Free Speech is a liberal conspiracy to bring about sharia law.

*God doesn't exist.

Also, Gres, your flag now contains 50% more Chessmistress.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

He's opening his own media venture and still publishing his book.

Look, I don't agree with Milo politically at all, but honestly he was important in this presidential bid, he helped give a voice to young conservatives and librarians and has forever had an impact on their lives. This also in no way nullifies any of the points he made, as an idea or a fact will live on long after a speaker is dead.

What this does however signify is a split in the Republican party much like the split in the democratic party. Young vs. old.

I doubt that Mr. Yiannopoulos speaks for the average librarian. After all, the overwhelming majority of librarians is Democratic.

Lol, no we are not.

[New Grestin]

Fun Fact: Freedom of speech doesn't preclude people from their god-given right to tell you to fuck off.

Except when you're an Alt-Righter, then Free Speech is a liberal conspiracy to bring about sharia law.

*God doesn't exist. :D

Also, Gres, your flag now contains 50% more Chessmistress.

*tips fedora* m'lady.

There's an irony to that, considering I deliberately went with Big Brother's eyes from 1984 as an unintentional counter to her more feminine designed flag.

[Ors Might]

So while this isn't directly related to the topic described in the OP and the one currently being discussed, the tittle itself makes it seem like a fairly decent thread to ask this question. In fact, I believe it momentarily came up somewhere here.

What is the actual point in blocking traffic during protests? I mean, protests who intentionally block traffic as a part of their message. I've genuinely never understood the logic behind this. Who is it supposed to convince? The people being kept from going about their day? I don't think the majority of those people take part in whatever system of oppression is being protested. Another angle to consider is that it's, quite frankly, counterproductive when the group your protesting on behalf of tends to be on average economically disenfranchised. Quite a few people risk losing their jobs if they're late for work, protest be damned. I don't know, perhaps there's something I'm missing. If it's to gain attention, there's other less damaging ways of doing it. Probably result in less resentment of your cause, too.

[Alvecia]

So while this isn't directly related to the topic described in the OP and the one currently being discussed, the tittle itself makes it seem like a fairly decent thread to ask this question. In fact, I believe it momentarily came up somewhere here.

What is the actual point in blocking traffic during protests? I mean, protests who intentionally block traffic as a part of their message. I've genuinely never understood the logic behind this. Who is it supposed to convince? The people being kept from going about their day? I don't think the majority of those people take part in whatever system of oppression is being protested. Another angle to consider is that it's, quite frankly, counterproductive when the group your protesting on behalf of tends to be on average economically disenfranchised. Quite a few people risk losing their jobs if they're late for work, protest be damned. I don't know, perhaps there's something I'm missing. If it's to gain attention, there's other less damaging ways of doing it. Probably result in less resentment of your cause, too.

It isn't meant to convince, it's meant to draw attention.

Like that advertising that is just so absolutely shit or controversial that everyone is talking about it. They're talking about it, so it's good advertising.

[Ors Might]

So while this isn't directly related to the topic described in the OP and the one currently being discussed, the tittle itself makes it seem like a fairly decent thread to ask this question. In fact, I believe it momentarily came up somewhere here.

What is the actual point in blocking traffic during protests? I mean, protests who intentionally block traffic as a part of their message. I've genuinely never understood the logic behind this. Who is it supposed to convince? The people being kept from going about their day? I don't think the majority of those people take part in whatever system of oppression is being protested. Another angle to consider is that it's, quite frankly, counterproductive when the group your protesting on behalf of tends to be on average economically disenfranchised. Quite a few people risk losing their jobs if they're late for work, protest be damned. I don't know, perhaps there's something I'm missing. If it's to gain attention, there's other less damaging ways of doing it. Probably result in less resentment of your cause, too.

It isn't meant to convince, it's meant to draw attention.

Like that advertising that is just so absolutely shit or controversial that everyone is talking about it. They're talking about it, so it's good advertising.

That still doesn't explain how that attention is a force for good if the protest itself causes more harm than good? Like I said there are other forms of protest one could utilize.