The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Militant Costco]

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.

Uh uh, I didn't say if you are sad. I said if they are important and significant to you. Like water, food or your parents. Because the definition of matter is: be of importance; have significance.

Also if you are sad for every person who dies every second, are you constantly sad?

[Alvecia]

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.

Uh uh, I didn't say if you are sad. I said if they are important and significant to you. Like water, food or your parents. Because the definition of matter is: be of importance; have significance.

We're moving away from the definition of matters a little bit but I think the above is still true.

Also if you are sad for every person who dies every second, are you constantly sad?

There's lots of happy things in the world as well. Lots of hope.

[Militant Costco]

Uh uh, I didn't say if you are sad. I said if they are important and significant to you. Like water, food or your parents. Because the definition of matter is: be of importance; have significance.

We're moving away from the definition of matters a little bit but I think the above is still true.

Also if you are sad for every person who dies every second, are you constantly sad?

There's lots of happy things in the world as well. Lots of hope.

We're moving away from the definition of matters a little bit but I think the above is still true.

Not really. I'm just asking if they matter to YOU? If they were important to YOU? If they were significant to YOU?

There's lots of happy things in the world as well. Lots of hope.

Of course, but you seriously cannot consider the loss of every life as someone you could have saved, that will only lead to despair.

Also I'm trying to get back to topic but I can't think of one so please suggest something.

[Elwher]

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?

First, CPAC is not a publicly funded organization. As such, UC Berkeley is considered an arm of the government and is therefore not permitted the freedom of action that a private group such as CPAC has. As a practical matter, since CPAC gets no federal funding, federal funding cannot be withheld from them.

Second, UC Berkeley has an obligation to prevent or shut down violent protests before they get to a point where a speech must be cancelled to protect the safety of the speaker. They failed in that duty. If a Federally funded body is not performing one of their core functions, the threat of removal of Federal funds is warranted. This is the same rationale used when Federal funds are threatened for schools that do not sufficiently investigate and prevent sexual assaults on campus.

[Wallenburg]

Second, UC Berkeley has an obligation to prevent or shut down violent protests before they get to a point where a speech must be cancelled to protect the safety of the speaker. They failed in that duty. If a Federally funded body is not performing one of their core functions, the threat of removal of Federal funds is warranted. This is the same rationale used when Federal funds are threatened for schools that do not sufficiently investigate and prevent sexual assaults on campus.

No, it doesn't have that obligation. It has an obligation to protect the safety and health of all people on its campus. When there is a mudslide risk, they evacuate endangered buildings. When there is a riot, they cancel events that could endanger attendants or featured individuals. You don't say that the university has an obligation to keep the landscape from moving, and that it has failed its obligations if a fully evacuated building gets trapped in a mudslide a week later. Why would you treat any other health or safety concern differently?

[Calladan]

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?

First, CPAC is not a publicly funded organization. As such, UC Berkeley is considered an arm of the government and is therefore not permitted the freedom of action that a private group such as CPAC has. As a practical matter, since CPAC gets no federal funding, federal funding cannot be withheld from them.

So he can't cut their funding. But does that mean he can't comment on their decision to limit freedom of speech? He can't publicly chastise them for taking a deliberate and premeditated action that did EXACTLY what he was so pissed off with Berkeley for doing?

Apparently not - apparently he is just going to stay quiet and allow them to get away with it without comment. Because - as I said - he is a hypocrite of the highest order.

[Liriena]

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.

The word racist has not "lost all meaning". This meme needs to die already.

Also, what made you realize that pedophilia accusations was "the new thing"? Did you realize it when Pizzagate became a thing, or did it take someone who you like getting accused to realize it?

[Ostroeuropa]

Nah, you know what?
Fuck this.

What happened to milo is obscene.
Everybody knows it.

Not even his enemies are really happy with this one. This was dirty. Not in the usual smear campaign way either, that would be business as usual.

This was watching him express signs of trauma, and then nailing him for it. for once, he was honest.
For once, he wasn't trying to piss people off, etc.
But it's done. Let's just try and not do that again.

I notice even some of the hardline SJW papers are kind of looking at their shoes and saying "He's had a really tough day." and stuff.

In the process as well, what did you accomplish?
You set a standard where male victims talking about trauma from pedophilia is something they'll be scared to talk about. Congratulations guys.

They did it to Dawkins too.
"Well ya I mean sometimes its not rape because they enjoy it, I enjoyed it when it happened to me so it wasnt rape."

*distant screeeeee getting closer*
*The feminist brigade that had been arguing with him a month prior arrives over the hill!!!! Oh no! Wall to wall PEDOPEDOPEODEODEOEODEODOEDAWKINSISAPEDOPDEODEODODEOD time.*

Even back then they got backlash over it from people who were like "What the hell guys?" but apparently, didn't learn. Happened again. Great. Cheers.

And because they won't just be honest about it, other victims wont come forward. This was fucked, and if you support it, your hatred for milo has blinded you to the collateral, in addition to dehumanized him the extent where you're fine using something like that to take him down.

I've seen a lot of crap in this culture war, but this thing that happened to Dawkins and Milo? I think it might be the first time I think; "Gosh. I can actually notice them feeling a bit guilty about this one."

What's next guys?

"Oh yeh, I cheated on my wife one time when this woman kept getting me drinks, then she got on top and fucked me, but i'd drunk so much I couldn't move to get her off and tell her no, haha."

-TRUMP AN ADULTERER.

How far can you push it.

Know what you did?

You proved a guy can say whatever the fuck he wants and get away with it.
But if he admits he was raped?
poof. Gone.

That's your accomplishment today.

[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.

The word racist has not "lost all meaning". This meme needs to die already.

Also, what made you realize that pedophilia accusations was "the new thing"? Did you realize it when Pizzagate became a thing, or did it take someone who you like getting accused to realize it?

It hasn't lost all meaning yet, but we're approaching a "boy who cried wolf" situation, if we haven't already.

Also, I assume that something being "the new thing" requires a pattern of (at least somewhat) high-profile cases, not just one conspiracy theory based on elites being weirder than usual.

[Liriena]

The word racist has not "lost all meaning". This meme needs to die already.

Also, what made you realize that pedophilia accusations was "the new thing"? Did you realize it when Pizzagate became a thing, or did it take someone who you like getting accused to realize it?

It hasn't lost all meaning yet, but we're approaching a "boy who cried wolf" situation, if we haven't already.

Not really. The fact that some people will misuse a word does not mean the word loses it's meaning. People misuse "your" and "you're" all the time, but they have not lost their meaning. "Literally" is widely misused, but it's meaning has not been lost.

Racist is a word that has a very simple and clear definition. Applications can vary, but the meaning remains the same in the end, and I personally find this movement to pretend that the concept of racism doesn't mean anything any longer quite dangerous. If we start acting like we can never point out actual racial prejudice and call it by its name ever again because the word "racist" has been misused by some people, that's one huge step in normalizing racial prejudice. If we start to act like, say, Richard Spencer's support for ethnic cleansing cannot be called racist, that means that we have forsaken the necessary vocabulary to accurately describe and tackle his views, and we have thereby defanged our opposition to his support for ethnic cleansing.

How do you fight actual racism if you believe that the word "racist" is meaningless?

[Proctopeo]

It hasn't lost all meaning yet, but we're approaching a "boy who cried wolf" situation, if we haven't already.

Not really. The fact that some people will misuse a word does not mean the word loses it's meaning. People misuse "your" and "you're" all the time, but they have not lost their meaning. "Literally" is widely misused, but it's meaning has not been lost.

Racist is a word that has a very simple and clear definition. Applications can vary, but the meaning remains the same in the end, and I personally find this movement to pretend that the concept of racism doesn't mean anything any longer quite dangerous. If we start acting like we can never point out actual racial prejudice and call it by its name ever again because the word "racist" has been misused by some people, that's one huge step in normalizing racial prejudice. If we start to act like, say, Richard Spencer's support for ethnic cleansing cannot be called racist, that means that we have forsaken the necessary vocabulary to accurately describe and tackle his views, and we have thereby defanged our opposition to his support for ethnic cleansing.

How do you fight actual racism if you believe that the word "racist" is meaningless?

A "boy who cried wolf" situation does not necessarily mean that the word would lose its meaning, but that, as a general rule, people would take accusations of racism less seriously. This situation may not be here yet, but I see it as a possibility for the future.

[Jello Biafra]

Not really. The fact that some people will misuse a word does not mean the word loses it's meaning. People misuse "your" and "you're" all the time, but they have not lost their meaning. "Literally" is widely misused, but it's meaning has not been lost.

Racist is a word that has a very simple and clear definition. Applications can vary, but the meaning remains the same in the end, and I personally find this movement to pretend that the concept of racism doesn't mean anything any longer quite dangerous. If we start acting like we can never point out actual racial prejudice and call it by its name ever again because the word "racist" has been misused by some people, that's one huge step in normalizing racial prejudice. If we start to act like, say, Richard Spencer's support for ethnic cleansing cannot be called racist, that means that we have forsaken the necessary vocabulary to accurately describe and tackle his views, and we have thereby defanged our opposition to his support for ethnic cleansing.

How do you fight actual racism if you believe that the word "racist" is meaningless?

A "boy who cried wolf" situation does not necessarily mean that the word would lose its meaning, but that, as a general rule, people would take accusations of racism less seriously. This situation may not be here yet, but I see it as a possibility for the future.

There are already plenty of people who don't take accusations of racism seriously and say that anyone who makes one is playing the victim and using the race card. It's as though they think society is completely racism-free and people like Dylann Roof are aliens who fall out of the sky coming up with ideas that are completely absent from society.

[Gauthier]

What's next guys?

"Oh yeh, I cheated on my wife one time when this woman kept getting me drinks, then she got on top and fucked me, but i'd drunk so much I couldn't move to get her off and tell her no, haha."

-TRUMP AN ADULTERER.

How far can you push it.

Know what you did?

You proved a guy can say whatever the fuck he wants and get away with it.
But if he admits he was raped?
poof. Gone.

That's your accomplishment today.

Today I Learned Donald Trump is in fact a victim of golddigger rape.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A "boy who cried wolf" situation does not necessarily mean that the word would lose its meaning, but that, as a general rule, people would take accusations of racism less seriously. This situation may not be here yet, but I see it as a possibility for the future.

There are already plenty of people who don't take accusations of racism seriously and say that anyone who makes one is playing the victim and using the race card. It's as though they think society is completely racism-free and people like Dylann Roof are aliens who fall out of the sky coming up with ideas that are completely absent from society.

The bigger problem is that people, instead of going "well okay, saying someone is a pedophile/racist/[insert other undersirable trait here] is a serious accusation, what's going on?" they treat it as if it was, somehow, not a problem.

Problems always need some sort of troubleshooting process, even if it means figuring out why a person is being called X.

[Wallenburg]

Nah, you know what?
Fuck this.

What happened to milo is obscene.
Everybody knows it.

Not even his enemies are really happy with this one. This was dirty. Not in the usual smear campaign way either, that would be business as usual.

This was watching him express signs of trauma, and then nailing him for it. for once, he was honest.
For once, he wasn't trying to piss people off, etc.
But it's done. Let's just try and not do that again.

I notice even some of the hardline SJW papers are kind of looking at their shoes and saying "He's had a really tough day." and stuff.

In the process as well, what did you accomplish?
You set a standard where male victims talking about trauma from pedophilia is something they'll be scared to talk about. Congratulations guys.

They did it to Dawkins too.
"Well ya I mean sometimes its not rape because they enjoy it, I enjoyed it when it happened to me so it wasnt rape."

*distant screeeeee getting closer*
*The feminist brigade that had been arguing with him a month prior arrives over the hill!!!! Oh no! Wall to wall PEDOPEDOPEODEODEOEODEODOEDAWKINSISAPEDOPDEODEODODEOD time.*

Even back then they got backlash over it from people who were like "What the hell guys?" but apparently, didn't learn. Happened again. Great. Cheers.

And because they won't just be honest about it, other victims wont come forward. This was fucked, and if you support it, your hatred for milo has blinded you to the collateral, in addition to dehumanized him the extent where you're fine using something like that to take him down.

I've seen a lot of crap in this culture war, but this thing that happened to Dawkins and Milo? I think it might be the first time I think; "Gosh. I can actually notice them feeling a bit guilty about this one."

What's next guys?

"Oh yeh, I cheated on my wife one time when this woman kept getting me drinks, then she got on top and fucked me, but i'd drunk so much I couldn't move to get her off and tell her no, haha."

-TRUMP AN ADULTERER.

How far can you push it.

Know what you did?

You proved a guy can say whatever the fuck he wants and get away with it.
But if he admits he was raped?
poof. Gone.

That's your accomplishment today.

In other words, Milo is always a victim, no matter what.

[Elwher]

Second, UC Berkeley has an obligation to prevent or shut down violent protests before they get to a point where a speech must be cancelled to protect the safety of the speaker. They failed in that duty. If a Federally funded body is not performing one of their core functions, the threat of removal of Federal funds is warranted. This is the same rationale used when Federal funds are threatened for schools that do not sufficiently investigate and prevent sexual assaults on campus.

No, it doesn't have that obligation. It has an obligation to protect the safety and health of all people on its campus. When there is a mudslide risk, they evacuate endangered buildings. When there is a riot, they cancel events that could endanger attendants or featured individuals. You don't say that the university has an obligation to keep the landscape from moving, and that it has failed its obligations if a fully evacuated building gets trapped in a mudslide a week later. Why would you treat any other health or safety concern differently?

Because a mudslide is not caused by people behaving badly. If the university were allowing people to flood slopes on campus, they would be failing in their duty just as they did by allowing the riot to continue.

[Elwher]

First, CPAC is not a publicly funded organization. As such, UC Berkeley is considered an arm of the government and is therefore not permitted the freedom of action that a private group such as CPAC has. As a practical matter, since CPAC gets no federal funding, federal funding cannot be withheld from them.

So he can't cut their funding. But does that mean he can't comment on their decision to limit freedom of speech? He can't publicly chastise them for taking a deliberate and premeditated action that did EXACTLY what he was so pissed off with Berkeley for doing?

Apparently not - apparently he is just going to stay quiet and allow them to get away with it without comment. Because - as I said - he is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Because private organizations have every right to determine who speaks at their meetings, while arms of the government like UC Berkeley are covered by the First Amendments.

[The Rom Jay]

So he can't cut their funding. But does that mean he can't comment on their decision to limit freedom of speech? He can't publicly chastise them for taking a deliberate and premeditated action that did EXACTLY what he was so pissed off with Berkeley for doing?

Apparently not - apparently he is just going to stay quiet and allow them to get away with it without comment. Because - as I said - he is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Because private organizations have every right to determine who speaks at their meetings, while arms of the government like UC Berkeley are covered by the First Amendments.

You do realize they were containing the riot to the best of their ability right? UC Berkeley isn't some military base where they can shut down a riot within a matter of seconds. They did their duty to make an attempt at calming the riot and when they failed they did their duty to escort the speaker safely. UC Berkeley is a university of the first amendment, to invite someone knowing something like this would be possible is a feat and to then accuse them of something directly contrary to their goals is pure libel and downplay, its betrayal.

[Elwher]

Because private organizations have every right to determine who speaks at their meetings, while arms of the government like UC Berkeley are covered by the First Amendments.

You do realize they were containing the riot to the best of their ability right? UC Berkeley isn't some military base where they can shut down a riot within a matter of seconds. They did their duty to make an attempt at calming the riot and when they failed they did their duty to escort the speaker safely. UC Berkeley is a university of the first amendment, to invite someone knowing something like this would be possible is a feat and to then accuse them of something directly contrary to their goals is pure libel and downplay, its betrayal.

Quite true, and in my defence of CPAC's right to determine speakers I may have gone a bit off track. I do not blame UC Berkeley for the problem, I blame the student body for it; and I find it hilariously ironic that the student body that formed the Free Speech movement of the 60's Against the administration's attempts to quell free speech has devolved into one now rioting to force the administration to quell freedom of speech on campus, and as a cherry on the sundae, in the same plaza where the Free Speech movement started.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

You do realize they were containing the riot to the best of their ability right? UC Berkeley isn't some military base where they can shut down a riot within a matter of seconds. They did their duty to make an attempt at calming the riot and when they failed they did their duty to escort the speaker safely. UC Berkeley is a university of the first amendment, to invite someone knowing something like this would be possible is a feat and to then accuse them of something directly contrary to their goals is pure libel and downplay, its betrayal.

Quite true, and in my defence of CPAC's right to determine speakers I may have gone a bit off track. I do not blame UC Berkeley for the problem, I blame the student body for it; and I find it hilariously ironic that the student body that formed the Free Speech movement of the 60's Against the administration's attempts to quell free speech has devolved into one now rioting to force the administration to quell freedom of speech on campus, and as a cherry on the sundae, in the same plaza where the Free Speech movement started.

Well he attacked our worldview so he deserved it /sarc

[Eschaton Isles]

While we're on the subject of misplaced outrage, what is your opinion on what George Takei said in this interview? It was a lot worse than what Milo said, do you think he should be dropped as well?

-snip-

Do we let Lena Dunham get away with bragging about molesting her younger sister in her book?

-snip-

I remember a lot of disgust and outrage about both of those, from people you'd undoubtedly consider part of "the left", when they first became known.

[Wallenburg]

While we're on the subject of misplaced outrage, what is your opinion on what George Takei said in this interview? It was a lot worse than what Milo said, do you think he should be dropped as well?

-snip-

Do we let Lena Dunham get away with bragging about molesting her younger sister in her book?

-snip-

I remember a lot of disgust and outrage about both of those, from people you'd undoubtedly consider part of "the left", when they first became known.

I don't think you get it. Since liberals have done bad things in the past, it is okay if conservatives do those bad things today.

[G-Tech Corporation]

I remember a lot of disgust and outrage about both of those, from people you'd undoubtedly consider part of "the left", when they first became known.

I don't think you get it. Since liberals have done bad things in the past, it is okay if conservatives do those bad things today.

Cream for goose is cream for gander, and all that.

Though, to be fair, Milo has always been a downright crazy.