The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Calladan]

I do have a question about Trump's reaction (or lack of it) to CPAC dropping this guy.

From what I understand, he was set to speak at Berkeley, then there was a protest, which became a riot, and Berkeley cancelled the talk because they were unsure they could keep him safe.

They didn't cancel the talk because of his views, or because of what he was going to say that night, but because of the circumstances of the evening.

Because of this, Trump threatened them with fire, pestilence and plague (and so on). His justification for this was "Berkeley doesn't seem to believe in free speech".

CPAC dropped this guy because he spoke out in defence of older men having sex with young boys (or appeared to speak out in defence of it).

And as far as I know Trump hasn't attacked them AT ALL for their lack of belief in free speech. This guy hasn't said HE wants to have sex with young boys, or that HE has actually HAD SEX with younger boys. He just expressed an opinion (or maybe did) - which (whatever your view of his opinion) is what I would define as free speech.

So where is Trump and his defence of free speech? Why isn't he attacking CPAC in the same way he attacked Berkeley? Especially since Berkeley was reacting to circumstances (rather than preemptively stopping someone from speaking based on their views) while CPAC is obviously doing the exact opposite and stifling freedom of speech and freedom of expression - something Trump apparently wants to champion?

[Gauthier]

I do have a question about Trump's reaction (or lack of it) to CPAC dropping this guy.

From what I understand, he was set to speak at Berkeley, then there was a protest, which became a riot, and Berkeley cancelled the talk because they were unsure they could keep him safe.

They didn't cancel the talk because of his views, or because of what he was going to say that night, but because of the circumstances of the evening.

Because of this, Trump threatened them with fire, pestilence and plague (and so on). His justification for this was "Berkeley doesn't seem to believe in free speech".

CPAC dropped this guy because he spoke out in defence of older men having sex with young boys (or appeared to speak out in defence of it).

And as far as I know Trump hasn't attacked them AT ALL for their lack of belief in free speech. This guy hasn't said HE wants to have sex with young boys, or that HE has actually HAD SEX with younger boys. He just expressed an opinion (or maybe did) - which (whatever your view of his opinion) is what I would define as free speech.

So where is Trump and his defence of free speech? Why isn't he attacking CPAC in the same way he attacked Berkeley? Especially since Berkeley was reacting to circumstances (rather than preemptively stopping someone from speaking based on their views) while CPAC is obviously doing the exact opposite and stifling freedom of speech and freedom of expression - something Trump apparently wants to champion?

IOKIYAR.

[Elwher]

I do have a question about Trump's reaction (or lack of it) to CPAC dropping this guy.

From what I understand, he was set to speak at Berkeley, then there was a protest, which became a riot, and Berkeley cancelled the talk because they were unsure they could keep him safe.

They didn't cancel the talk because of his views, or because of what he was going to say that night, but because of the circumstances of the evening.

Because of this, Trump threatened them with fire, pestilence and plague (and so on). His justification for this was "Berkeley doesn't seem to believe in free speech".

CPAC dropped this guy because he spoke out in defence of older men having sex with young boys (or appeared to speak out in defence of it).

And as far as I know Trump hasn't attacked them AT ALL for their lack of belief in free speech. This guy hasn't said HE wants to have sex with young boys, or that HE has actually HAD SEX with younger boys. He just expressed an opinion (or maybe did) - which (whatever your view of his opinion) is what I would define as free speech.

So where is Trump and his defence of free speech? Why isn't he attacking CPAC in the same way he attacked Berkeley? Especially since Berkeley was reacting to circumstances (rather than preemptively stopping someone from speaking based on their views) while CPAC is obviously doing the exact opposite and stifling freedom of speech and freedom of expression - something Trump apparently wants to champion?

There is a distinct difference between a reasoned decision, well before the time, to cancel a speech and reacting in fear of rioters immediately before a speech is to be given. While I do not agree with either action, at least the right was not breaking windows and rioting to keep him quiet.

[The Texan Union]

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.

Is it good advertising? Because me and my friends are talking about the advertisement, sure, but also about how much we now despise the company and never want to be affiliated with sucj horrible stupidity.

Similarly, BLM protests that block the street get them my attention. And now I actively despise the movement.

It's like, negative advertising. It's good for attention, but bad for business. Kind of like shooting up a church. You're famous, but just in the form of an edgy joke every now and then.

[Patridam]

Well my fears that accusing people of pedophilia is the new thing are realized. Someone has faked a Twitter DM of Sargon of Akkad requesting child porn and now he's banned.

First the word racist lost all meaning due to people throwing it around to no platform people. Then it was nazi. Now it's pedophile.

[Proctopeo]

Well my fears that accusing people of pedophilia is the new thing are realized. Someone has faked a Twitter DM of Sargon of Akkad requesting child porn and now he's banned.

First the word racist lost all meaning due to people throwing it around to no platform people. Then it was nazi. Now it's pedophile.

I checked, and it's a different example from the one that happened last month.
He's back, though, it seems. Seems like they stripped him of his followers, though. Oh, Twitter.

[Calladan]

I do have a question about Trump's reaction (or lack of it) to CPAC dropping this guy.

From what I understand, he was set to speak at Berkeley, then there was a protest, which became a riot, and Berkeley cancelled the talk because they were unsure they could keep him safe.

They didn't cancel the talk because of his views, or because of what he was going to say that night, but because of the circumstances of the evening.

Because of this, Trump threatened them with fire, pestilence and plague (and so on). His justification for this was "Berkeley doesn't seem to believe in free speech".

CPAC dropped this guy because he spoke out in defence of older men having sex with young boys (or appeared to speak out in defence of it).

And as far as I know Trump hasn't attacked them AT ALL for their lack of belief in free speech. This guy hasn't said HE wants to have sex with young boys, or that HE has actually HAD SEX with younger boys. He just expressed an opinion (or maybe did) - which (whatever your view of his opinion) is what I would define as free speech.

So where is Trump and his defence of free speech? Why isn't he attacking CPAC in the same way he attacked Berkeley? Especially since Berkeley was reacting to circumstances (rather than preemptively stopping someone from speaking based on their views) while CPAC is obviously doing the exact opposite and stifling freedom of speech and freedom of expression - something Trump apparently wants to champion?

There is a distinct difference between a reasoned decision, well before the time, to cancel a speech and reacting in fear of rioters immediately before a speech is to be given. While I do not agree with either action, at least the right was not breaking windows and rioting to keep him quiet.

That isn't an answer. That isn't even CLOSE to an answer.

The staff and regents are Berkeley were not the ones doing the rioting. The ones who took the decision to cancel the talk for this guy's safety were not the ones doing the rioting. They were not "breaking windows and rioting to keep him quiet". And yet THEY were the ones that got threatened with funding cuts by Trump because "they did not believe in free speech"

So Berkeley took a decision to cancel a speech due to a set of circumstances, and they are berated and threatened by Trump, while CPAC cancel a speech because they don't like what he has to say (the very DEFINITION of limiting freedom of speech) and Trump says nothing.

How is that not hypocrisy of the worst kind?

[Corrian]

It is funny hearing Trump whine about them limiting a guys free speech in the first place.

[Gauthier]

It is funny hearing Trump whine about them limiting a guys free speech in the first place.

And not a peep on CPAC and Breitbart shutting him down.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

It is funny hearing Trump whine about them limiting a guys free speech in the first place.

And not a peep on CPAC and Breitbart shutting him down.

He resigned, he wasn't fired.

[Wallenburg]

And not a peep on CPAC and Breitbart shutting him down.

He resigned, he wasn't fired.

When this sort of stuff happens, businesses tend to allow the person in question to resign.

[The Alexanderians]

He resigned, he wasn't fired.

When this sort of stuff happens, businesses tend to allow the person in question to resign.

It's not like they could force him to stay.

[Wallenburg]

When this sort of stuff happens, businesses tend to allow the person in question to resign.

It's not like they could force him to stay.

LOL. Clever. You know what I mean, though. If he refused to leave, they would have fired him.

[The Alexanderians]

It's not like they could force him to stay.

LOL. Clever. You know what I mean, though. If he refused to leave, they would have fired him.

If you mean something besides the face value of your statement I neither get what I said that was so clever nor what you mean.

[Wallenburg]

LOL. Clever. You know what I mean, though. If he refused to leave, they would have fired him.

If you mean something besides the face value of your statement I neither get what I said that was so clever nor what you mean.

I just told you what I mean. It's right there. Not very hard to read either. I'll go ahead and bold it, just in case.

[The Alexanderians]

If you mean something besides the face value of your statement I neither get what I said that was so clever nor what you mean.

I just told you what I mean. It's right there. Not very hard to read either. I'll go ahead and bold it, just in case.

You said allow in your first statement so I'm seeing conflict.

[Uiiop]

I just told you what I mean. It's right there. Not very hard to read either. I'll go ahead and bold it, just in case.

You said allow in your first statement so I'm seeing conflict.

I guess that's because basically he used italics when you would use "quote marks".

[Alvecia]

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.

Is it good advertising? Because me and my friends are talking about the advertisement, sure, but also about how much we now despise the company and never want to be affiliated with sucj horrible stupidity.

Similarly, BLM protests that block the street get them my attention. And now I actively despise the movement.

It's like, negative advertising. It's good for attention, but bad for business. Kind of like shooting up a church. You're famous, but just in the form of an edgy joke every now and then.

Organisations like BLM exist primarily to bring attention to an issue. You can, for example, hate BLM but agree that there's some institutionalised racism within the police force.
Arguably there can be things an organisation can do that will taint their image and, by association, their cause. But irritation people by blocking traffic is not nearly on that level. That kind of irritation is a lot of what makes protests powerful.

[Militant Costco]

Is it good advertising? Because me and my friends are talking about the advertisement, sure, but also about how much we now despise the company and never want to be affiliated with sucj horrible stupidity.

Similarly, BLM protests that block the street get them my attention. And now I actively despise the movement.

It's like, negative advertising. It's good for attention, but bad for business. Kind of like shooting up a church. You're famous, but just in the form of an edgy joke every now and then.

Organisations like BLM exist primarily to bring attention to an issue. You can, for example, hate BLM but agree that there's some institutionalised racism within the police force.
Arguably there can be things an organisation can do that will taint their image and, by association, their cause. But irritation people by blocking traffic is not nearly on that level. That kind of irritation is a lot of what makes protests powerful.

BLM can suck my chicken. It's one thing to bring an issue to attention, it another to actually have a solution for that issue. All I see with BLM is a bunch of people shouting they matter while blocking my commute and my TV signal, those kinda lives don't matter. MLK didn't go to the steps of the capital to say "I don't have a dream!" or protest institutionalized racism without a proposal to fix it.

So yes, you can say I hate BLM because they block traffic.

[Alvecia]

Organisations like BLM exist primarily to bring attention to an issue. You can, for example, hate BLM but agree that there's some institutionalised racism within the police force.
Arguably there can be things an organisation can do that will taint their image and, by association, their cause. But irritation people by blocking traffic is not nearly on that level. That kind of irritation is a lot of what makes protests powerful.

BLM can suck my chicken. It's one thing to bring an issue to attention, it another to actually have a solution for that issue. All I see with BLM is a bunch of people shouting they matter while blocking my commute and my TV signal, those kinda lives don't matter. MLK didn't go to the steps of the capital to say "I don't have a dream!" or protest institutionalized racism without a proposal to fix it.

So yes, you can say I hate BLM because they block traffic.

I don't really know what it says about you that you consider people who block traffic to be lesser beings.

[Jello Biafra]

Organisations like BLM exist primarily to bring attention to an issue. You can, for example, hate BLM but agree that there's some institutionalised racism within the police force.
Arguably there can be things an organisation can do that will taint their image and, by association, their cause. But irritation people by blocking traffic is not nearly on that level. That kind of irritation is a lot of what makes protests powerful.

BLM can suck my chicken. It's one thing to bring an issue to attention, it another to actually have a solution for that issue. All I see with BLM is a bunch of people shouting they matter while blocking my commute and my TV signal, those kinda lives don't matter. MLK didn't go to the steps of the capital to say "I don't have a dream!" or protest institutionalized racism without a proposal to fix it.

So yes, you can say I hate BLM because they block traffic.

I'd think that a proposal such as "The police need more oversight" is a step in the right direction. BLM isn't responsible for fixing the entirety of institutionalized racism.

[Militant Costco]

BLM can suck my chicken. It's one thing to bring an issue to attention, it another to actually have a solution for that issue. All I see with BLM is a bunch of people shouting they matter while blocking my commute and my TV signal, those kinda lives don't matter. MLK didn't go to the steps of the capital to say "I don't have a dream!" or protest institutionalized racism without a proposal to fix it.

So yes, you can say I hate BLM because they block traffic.

I don't really know what it says about you that you consider people who block traffic to be lesser beings.

Please quote when I said people who block traffic are lesser beings.

When I said those lives don't matter. I was referring to the fact that they're called "Black Lives Matter" and it was really a play on words. It's not race based or anything, they could be any race and they still wouldn't matter to me.

And let's be honest, no ones lives matter unless they're your friend or family. I'm not mourning for the person who just died in Kazakhstan and so are you. I'm not going to mourn for you if you die and you won't mourn if I die. No one matters.

BLM can suck my chicken. It's one thing to bring an issue to attention, it another to actually have a solution for that issue. All I see with BLM is a bunch of people shouting they matter while blocking my commute and my TV signal, those kinda lives don't matter. MLK didn't go to the steps of the capital to say "I don't have a dream!" or protest institutionalized racism without a proposal to fix it.

So yes, you can say I hate BLM because they block traffic.

I'd think that a proposal such as "The police need more oversight" is a step in the right direction. BLM isn't responsible for fixing the entirety of institutionalized racism.

That's not a solution. It's like saying "I hate the government, we should remove it". There needs to be detailed steps and plans for one to work.

Rosa Park wasn't fighting against buses, she protested the racist system inside them. Gandhi wasn't fighting against Britain, he was fighting against British rule and it's cruelty on India and its people.

[Alvecia]

I don't really know what it says about you that you consider people who block traffic to be lesser beings.

Please quote when I said people who block traffic are lesser beings.

When I said those lives don't matter. I was referring to the fact that they're called "Black Lives Matter" and it was really a play on words. It's not race based or anything, they could be any race and they still wouldn't matter to me.

You answered that question yourself.
See I don't think there is anyone who's life I don't think matters. You obviously differ. I'm not sure how productive any discussion would be with such a huge ideological divide.

[Militant Costco]

Please quote when I said people who block traffic are lesser beings.

When I said those lives don't matter. I was referring to the fact that they're called "Black Lives Matter" and it was really a play on words. It's not race based or anything, they could be any race and they still wouldn't matter to me.

You answered that question yourself.
See I don't think there is anyone who's life I don't think matters. You obviously differ. I'm not sure how productive any discussion would be with such a huge ideological divide.

No I didn't, I just put that second part for if you thought so, not when I said so. Lives not mattering and being a lesser being are two different things. I don't care about your life, but I still think you are equally human as me and any other human.

So let me get this clear. Every person who just died in the time it took me to write this post, was of importance to you and was significant to you?

[Alvecia]

You answered that question yourself.
See I don't think there is anyone who's life I don't think matters. You obviously differ. I'm not sure how productive any discussion would be with such a huge ideological divide.

No I didn't, I just put that second part for if you thought so, not when I said so. Lives not mattering and being a lesser being are two different things. I don't care about your life, but I still think you are equally human as me and any other human.

So let me get this clear. Every person who just died in the time it took me to write this post, was of importance to you and was significant to you?

They mattered, yes. I'm sad that they died. Some probably before their time, it's tragic. If I could've helped them, I would.