Cal Berkeley Students Shut Down Campus Protesting Milo Yiannopoulos

[atribecalledgabi]

Good. Fuck that bitch. Idk why he took his conservative ass to liberal ass Berkeley anyway

Gee and here I was thinking an open exchange of ideas instead of living in echo chambers was a good thing.

Yea cuz that's really what he was hoping for. You know better, william.

Do you have any racist quotes from him even? I listened to two podcasts with him on the JRE and while I don't align with him politically he said nothing to riot over and nothing racist.

I reaaaalllly hate using terms like "snowflake" but college kids are the worst sometimes.

I'm not on social media nor do I follow him so I can't/won't up and post his shit. But I've seen articles of his over the years (he's an editor or something for breitbart....foh) where I can see why a student at Berkeley (or many) don't want him using their school and reputation for his bullshit.

They're not censoring him. They're not trying to kill him or end his career they just don't want him at their school. Why do those students HAVE to have somebody speak that fundamentally goes against a large portion of that population?

I understand the Breitbart association, cause Breaitbart is trash, but him speaking there has nothing to do with the schools reputation.

And ummm... rioting is definitely censoring him. You say they aren't trying to kill him, but if you don't think a mob would have fucked milo up you're crazy (I know that would make people happy but I'm one of those rare people that doesn't like violence and thing dialogue should be responded to with dialogue".

They could just NOT go to his speech, or protest peacefully. Rioting is just childish. By making it a big deal, they draw more attention to him and give him an even bigger platform. It's entirely counter-intuitive.

The strongest point AGAINST him speaking is the fact that he's not a scholar, and is basically a real life troll. I'm not at all Milo fan, but I am an absolutist when it comes to free speech and I don't like the precident this sets.

Breitbart is an inherently racist site that he is an editor for, but I'd like to see an actual quote from Milo himself that is even covertly racist. It can't be that hard for someone to find.

How is the association with problematic people or groups not a reflection on the school? Bet they got more ppl that wana go there now if they know a good portion of current students won't allow ppl with politics like milo there. And I can also bet that a lot of current, former and prospective students would be disappointed if he was allowed in and met with no resistance.

Rioting isn't censorship...you can say what you want, just over there. that's a fair statement that milo coulda gotten hurt but, like you said, these are snowflake college kids so who knows.

I still don't see why they should allow him to come into their space if they fundamentally don't agree. College is way too expensive, especially at Berkeley, for them to not have a say in who they want around them.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Good. Fuck that bitch. Idk why he took his conservative ass to liberal ass Berkeley anyway

Gee and here I was thinking an open exchange of ideas instead of living in echo chambers was a good thing.

Yea cuz that's really what he was hoping for. You know better, william.

Do you have any racist quotes from him even? I listened to two podcasts with him on the JRE and while I don't align with him politically he said nothing to riot over and nothing racist.

I reaaaalllly hate using terms like "snowflake" but college kids are the worst sometimes.

I'm not on social media nor do I follow him so I can't/won't up and post his shit. But I've seen articles of his over the years (he's an editor or something for breitbart....foh) where I can see why a student at Berkeley (or many) don't want him using their school and reputation for his bullshit.

They're not censoring him. They're not trying to kill him or end his career they just don't want him at their school. Why do those students HAVE to have somebody speak that fundamentally goes against a large portion of that population?

Because that's what academics and scholarship is about. If you have a club or social group, and you don't want someone with a different stance joining it, that's one thing, but you can't really apply the same to an academic institution. Schools are supposed to allow the free flow of information, If a person is wrong, their stance should be beaten intellectually.

By your logic, black scholars should have been banned from speaking at majority white institutions back in the day because much of the student bodies of those schools were racist and didn't want that.

 

[SneakDZA]

It's incredible how many people here consistently jump at the chance to defend the rights of neo-nazis.

@The Lonius Monk - for the record - a black scholar and a neo-nazi internet troll aren't on the same standing and your equating of the two is an example of the same kind of normalization of radical white ignorance that brings us Donald Trump as a response to Barack Obama.

Is there some kind of award for being the devil's advocate that I don't know about?

 

[stringer bell]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...attend-white-house-briefing-article-1.2963188

Controversial right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos to attend White House press briefing

That racist faggot is going to the White House press briefing today.. I'm sure that faggot will ask some whiny softball question about conservative voices are being "impressed" by the PC police...

 

[CashmoneyDux]

Guys, slavery would have went much better if we had opened up a dialog with the slave owners.

 

[fortyacres]

 

The user and all related content has been deleted.

 

[Will Munny]

McGinnis is Canada's heterosexual version of Milo. So yeah.... what we've aall already said.

 

[Plutarch]

It's incredible how many people here consistently jump at the chance to defend the rights of neo-nazis.

@The Lonius Monk - for the record - a black scholar and a neo-nazi internet troll aren't on the same standing and your equating of the two is an example of the same kind of normalization of radical white ignorance that brings us Donald Trump as a response to Barack Obama.

Is there some kind of award for being the devil's advocate that I don't know about?

For some reason, I got a notification saying that I was mentioned in this post, and if I wasn't, then don't mind me, but something tells me this could've been directed at me, so I'll just defend me and mine.

I will defend anyone's right to free speech, regardless of who he is or whatever he advocates. I'm sure I don't have to explain why. You already know the whole "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death you're right to say it" bit.

If you somehow think that defending a "neo-nazi"'s (respect to @Nope for being one of the people, if not the only one, who provided some evidence, albeit partly debatable, that Milo is in fact a neo-nazi) right to speech is equivalent to supporting neo-nazism, then I truly hope that you can already see the obvious problem in that reasoning.

I don't know if seeing nothing but devil's advocate is some kind of near-sightedness, but if it isn't that or if it isn't a joke, then you're clearly missing the point, a point that really is just painfully obvious. C'mon, let's be real here. Shit, and I'm on your side! But I won't be dishonest even if it benefits me.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

It's incredible how many people here consistently jump at the chance to defend the rights of neo-nazis.

@The Lonius Monk - for the record - a black scholar and a neo-nazi internet troll aren't on the same standing and your equating of the two is an example of the same kind of normalization of radical white ignorance that brings us Donald Trump as a response to Barack Obama.

Is there some kind of award for being the devil's advocate that I don't know about?

Look if you're not an academic or a scholar, you can believe you want, but the shit the you people are proposing is the antithesis of what academic institutions are for, period. It's not about playing Devil's Advocate. Whether you like what the guy is saying or not, the proper way to deal with someone you disagree with in that arena is to destroy their arguments logically and factually not try to silence them. That's how it's always been done. It's only now in this era of overly-PC bullshit and SJWs that people try to pull the academic equivalents of bitch moves.

Most people on this site aren't intellectuals, have little to no intellectual curiosity, and have no desire to approach things in an intellectual manner. That is absolutely fine. Not everyone has to be like that. But colleges and universities are where things are supposed to be done that way. So when people inside that arena start acting like people outside of that arena, it's a problem.

My point in bringing up black scholars during the Jim Crow era was not to say the same as a neo-nazi, and I am continuously baffled by how people on this site don't understand how analogies and other comparisons work. I brought the scholars up because there was once a time when they were seen as the radicals and they were the ones that weren't wanted on campuses, but they were allowed to come on anyway because bringing both sides to a debate or discussion is how scholars are supposed to handle things. In most cases, they killed the opposition and that worked towards the progression of the Civil Rights movement. Here, we have a chance where scholars could attack the Alt-Rights narrative and take down one of its figures, but instead the people at the school stand for the non-scholarly and cowardly way.

 

[SneakDZA]

It's incredible how many people here consistently jump at the chance to defend the rights of neo-nazis.

@The Lonius Monk - for the record - a black scholar and a neo-nazi internet troll aren't on the same standing and your equating of the two is an example of the same kind of normalization of radical white ignorance that brings us Donald Trump as a response to Barack Obama.

Is there some kind of award for being the devil's advocate that I don't know about?

Look if you're not an academic or a scholar, you can believe you want, but the shit the you people are proposing is the antithesis of what academic institutions are for, period. It's not about playing Devil's Advocate. Whether you like what the guy is saying or not, the proper way to deal with someone you disagree with in that arena is to destroy their arguments logically and factually not try to silence them. That's how it's always been done. It's only now in this era of overly-PC bullshit and SJWs that people try to pull the academic equivalents of bitch moves.

Most people on this site aren't intellectuals, have little to no intellectual curiosity, and have no desire to approach things in an intellectual manner. That is absolutely fine. Not everyone has to be like that. But colleges and universities are where things are supposed to be done that way. So when people inside that arena start acting like people outside of that arena, it's a problem.

My point in bringing up black scholars during the Jim Crow era was not to say the same as a neo-nazi, and I am continuously baffled by how people on this site don't understand how analogies and other comparisons work. I brought the scholars up because there was once a time when they were seen as the radicals and they were the ones that weren't wanted on campuses, but they were allowed to come on anyway because bringing both sides to a debate or discussion is how scholars are supposed to handle things. In most cases, they killed the opposition and that worked towards the progression of the Civil Rights movement. Here, we have a chance where scholars could attack the Alt-Rights narrative and take down one of its figures, but instead the people at the school stand for the non-scholarly and cowardly way.

I understood your analogy. I just pointed out why it's bullshit.

You continue to think it's fair to compare a neo-nazi internet troll being paid tuition money to recruit and radicalize others like him to a scholar so we're never going to agree.

Also I don't see what's cowardly about standing up for your principles by any means. Maybe if some nazis rolled up in your spot you'd be willing to have a little meet & greet with them but I commend those that chase them the fuck out of town.

 

[silverfoxx]

Who?

 

[SneakDZA]

It's incredible how many people here consistently jump at the chance to defend the rights of neo-nazis.

@The Lonius Monk - for the record - a black scholar and a neo-nazi internet troll aren't on the same standing and your equating of the two is an example of the same kind of normalization of radical white ignorance that brings us Donald Trump as a response to Barack Obama.

Is there some kind of award for being the devil's advocate that I don't know about?

For some reason, I got a notification saying that I was mentioned in this post, and if I wasn't, then don't mind me, but something tells me this could've been directed at me, so I'll just defend me and mine.

I will defend anyone's right to free speech, regardless of who he is or whatever he advocates. I'm sure I don't have to explain why. You already know the whole "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death you're right to say it" bit.

If you somehow think that defending a "neo-nazi" (respect to @Nope for being one of the people, if not the only one, who provided some evidence, albeit partly debatable, that Milo is in fact a neo-nazi) is equivalent to supporting a neo-nazi, then I truly hope that you can already see the obvious problem in that reasoning.

I don't know if seeing nothing but devil's advocate is some kind of near-sightedness, but if it isn't that or if it isn't a joke, then you're clearly missing the point, a point that really is just painfully obvious. C'mon, let's be real here. Shit, and I'm on your side! But I won't be dishonest even if it benefits me.

I mistakenly thought you wrote the bullshit I quoted because let's be honest... you easily could have.

With that said you need to look up what freedom of speech actually means. No one's freedom of speech was violated or stifled. In fact people used their freedom to assemble to keep a neo-nazi (no quotes) out of their zone. The reason you're playing devil's advocate is because you would rather defend the nazi's nonexistent right to be paid to speak at a university over the rights of the students to shut that shit down.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

It's incredible how many people here consistently jump at the chance to defend the rights of neo-nazis.

@The Lonius Monk - for the record - a black scholar and a neo-nazi internet troll aren't on the same standing and your equating of the two is an example of the same kind of normalization of radical white ignorance that brings us Donald Trump as a response to Barack Obama.

Is there some kind of award for being the devil's advocate that I don't know about?

Look if you're not an academic or a scholar, you can believe you want, but the shit the you people are proposing is the antithesis of what academic institutions are for, period. It's not about playing Devil's Advocate. Whether you like what the guy is saying or not, the proper way to deal with someone you disagree with in that arena is to destroy their arguments logically and factually not try to silence them. That's how it's always been done. It's only now in this era of overly-PC bullshit and SJWs that people try to pull the academic equivalents of bitch moves.

Most people on this site aren't intellectuals, have little to no intellectual curiosity, and have no desire to approach things in an intellectual manner. That is absolutely fine. Not everyone has to be like that. But colleges and universities are where things are supposed to be done that way. So when people inside that arena start acting like people outside of that arena, it's a problem.

My point in bringing up black scholars during the Jim Crow era was not to say the same as a neo-nazi, and I am continuously baffled by how people on this site don't understand how analogies and other comparisons work. I brought the scholars up because there was once a time when they were seen as the radicals and they were the ones that weren't wanted on campuses, but they were allowed to come on anyway because bringing both sides to a debate or discussion is how scholars are supposed to handle things. In most cases, they killed the opposition and that worked towards the progression of the Civil Rights movement. Here, we have a chance where scholars could attack the Alt-Rights narrative and take down one of its figures, but instead the people at the school stand for the non-scholarly and cowardly way.

I understood your analogy. I just pointed out why it's bullshit.

You continue to think it's fair to compare a neo-nazi internet troll being paid tuition money to recruit and radicalize others like him to a scholar so we're never going to agree.

Also I don't see what's cowardly about standing up for your principles by any means. Maybe if some nazis rolled up in your spot you'd be willing to have a little meet & greet with them but I commend those that chase them the fuck out of town.

No, you clearly didn't understand the analogy because whether a black scholar is the same as a neo-nazi or not is irrelevant. That's not how analogies work. For example, take the anology: A wing is to a bird as a flipper is to a fish. What you did was basically come back and say the analogy is wrong because wings have feathers and flippers don't. That misses the fucking point of the analogy and shows a complete lack of understanding of how analogies work. Even in this response, you continue to do that.

In no way am I saying that Milo as a figure is the same as any of the great Civil Rights era scholars. Again, if you understand how simple comparisons work, that should be obvious. I'm comparing the circumstances. Who the person is doesn't matter. For an academic discussion, the ideas are what's important, and the way you deal with ideas you don't agree with, from an academics standpoint, is to discredit them intellectually. We're not talking about meet & greets or parties or other social functions. We're talking about the intellectual arena where there are thousands of years of precedent for how things like this are handled. If that's not something you care about, fine, but better to say you don't care about it than to chime in on something you don't really know anything about.

 

[SneakDZA]

It's incredible how many people here consistently jump at the chance to defend the rights of neo-nazis.

@The Lonius Monk - for the record - a black scholar and a neo-nazi internet troll aren't on the same standing and your equating of the two is an example of the same kind of normalization of radical white ignorance that brings us Donald Trump as a response to Barack Obama.

Is there some kind of award for being the devil's advocate that I don't know about?

Look if you're not an academic or a scholar, you can believe you want, but the shit the you people are proposing is the antithesis of what academic institutions are for, period. It's not about playing Devil's Advocate. Whether you like what the guy is saying or not, the proper way to deal with someone you disagree with in that arena is to destroy their arguments logically and factually not try to silence them. That's how it's always been done. It's only now in this era of overly-PC bullshit and SJWs that people try to pull the academic equivalents of bitch moves.

Most people on this site aren't intellectuals, have little to no intellectual curiosity, and have no desire to approach things in an intellectual manner. That is absolutely fine. Not everyone has to be like that. But colleges and universities are where things are supposed to be done that way. So when people inside that arena start acting like people outside of that arena, it's a problem.

My point in bringing up black scholars during the Jim Crow era was not to say the same as a neo-nazi, and I am continuously baffled by how people on this site don't understand how analogies and other comparisons work. I brought the scholars up because there was once a time when they were seen as the radicals and they were the ones that weren't wanted on campuses, but they were allowed to come on anyway because bringing both sides to a debate or discussion is how scholars are supposed to handle things. In most cases, they killed the opposition and that worked towards the progression of the Civil Rights movement. Here, we have a chance where scholars could attack the Alt-Rights narrative and take down one of its figures, but instead the people at the school stand for the non-scholarly and cowardly way.

I understood your analogy. I just pointed out why it's bullshit.

You continue to think it's fair to compare a neo-nazi internet troll being paid tuition money to recruit and radicalize others like him to a scholar so we're never going to agree.

Also I don't see what's cowardly about standing up for your principles by any means. Maybe if some nazis rolled up in your spot you'd be willing to have a little meet & greet with them but I commend those that chase them the fuck out of town.

No, you clearly didn't understand the analogy because whether a black scholar is the same as a neo-nazi or not is irrelevant. That's not how analogies work. For example, take the anology: A wing is to a bird as a flipper is to a fish. What you did was basically come back and say the analogy is wrong because wings have feathers and flippers don't. That misses the fucking point of the analogy and shows a complete lack of understanding of how analogies work. Even in this response, you continue to do that.

In no way am I saying that Milo as a figure is the same as any of the great Civil Rights era scholars. Again, if you understand how simple comparisons work, that should be obvious. I'm comparing the circumstances. Who the person is doesn't matter. For an academic discussion, the ideas are what's important, and the way you deal with ideas you don't agree with, from an academics standpoint, is to discredit them intellectually. We're not talking about meet & greets or parties or other social functions. We're talking about the intellectual arena where there are thousands of years of precedent for how things like this are handled. If that's not something you care about, fine, but better to say you don't care about it than to chime in on something you don't really know anything about.

a·nal·o·gous

əˈnaləɡəs/

adjective

adjective: analogous

comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared.

"they saw the relationship between a ruler and his subjects as analogous to that of father and children"

synonyms: comparable, parallel, similar, like, akin, corresponding, related, kindred, equivalent

"their lab results were analogous"

antonyms: unrelated

Biology

(of structures) performing a similar function but having a different evolutionary origin, such as the wings of insects and birds.

I'm not playing this game anymore. You can defend the nazi piece of shit all you want if that's what it takes to make you feel intellectually, morally or academically superior.

We punch nazis over here.

 

[atribecalledgabi]

Yall still not saying how this dude's free speech is suppressed.....people not interested in having him in their space is no different than switching from Uber to lyft. Nobody is saying he can't or shouldn't speak ever again. Just choose a different location.

 

[atribecalledgabi]

Good. Fuck that bitch. Idk why he took his conservative ass to liberal ass Berkeley anyway

Gee and here I was thinking an open exchange of ideas instead of living in echo chambers was a good thing.

Yea cuz that's really what he was hoping for. You know better, william.

Do you have any racist quotes from him even? I listened to two podcasts with him on the JRE and while I don't align with him politically he said nothing to riot over and nothing racist.

I reaaaalllly hate using terms like "snowflake" but college kids are the worst sometimes.

I'm not on social media nor do I follow him so I can't/won't up and post his shit. But I've seen articles of his over the years (he's an editor or something for breitbart....foh) where I can see why a student at Berkeley (or many) don't want him using their school and reputation for his bullshit.

They're not censoring him. They're not trying to kill him or end his career they just don't want him at their school. Why do those students HAVE to have somebody speak that fundamentally goes against a large portion of that population?

Because that's what academics and scholarship is about. If you have a club or social group, and you don't want someone with a different stance joining it, that's one thing, but you can't really apply the same to an academic institution. Schools are supposed to allow the free flow of information, If a person is wrong, their stance should be beaten intellectually.

By your logic, black scholars should have been banned from speaking at majority white institutions back in the day because much of the student bodies of those schools were racist and didn't want that.

What information tho? The ppl protesting milo already know his work and what he's about. Anybody that wants to know because of this and didn't know before can easily find out. I don't want you in my space =/= you can't speak ever again.

Black scholars and alt-right sympathizer trolls are not even the same and idk why you would even try to make that point.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I'm not playing this game anymore. You can defend the nazi piece of shit all you want if that's what it takes to make you feel intellectually, morally or academically superior.

We punch nazis over here.

Posting the definition of analogous is pointless. We're talking about an analogy which is a specific type of comparison. And feel free to continue to misrepresent my stance or deflect by trying to falsely characterize my reasoning for making the statements. Neither of those things strengthens your side.

And punch nazis all you want as long as its not in an intellectual setting. Which I'm guessing for you, it probably won't be.

What information tho? The ppl protesting milo already know his work and what he's about. Anybody that wants to know because of this and didn't know before can easily find out. I don't want you in my space =/= you can't speak ever again.

Black scholars and alt-right sympathizer trolls are not even the same and idk why you would even try to make that point.

His rhetoric is information. It might be bad and incorrect information, but it's still information. You don't get rid of bad information by hiding from it. You get rid of bad information by proving it to be incorrect. That is what acadmenic institutions are for, to weed out bad information and promote the good kind. Students don't own universities. You don't get to go to a school and demand that the school rejects any and everything that you don't personally agree with.

And again, no one was saying black scholars and alt-right sympathizers are the same things, so please everyone, stop making that simple minded statement. The feelings toward them by the student bodies is what's similar. The students at white institutions probably felt the same way about black scholars that the protesters feel about Milo. Were they wrong to feel that way? Of course, but that doesn't change the facts. However, schools still allowed those scholars to speak, and that benefitted the black community. If Milo is as wrong as we all believe him to be, allowing him to speak and ripping his stance to shreds would be a much more powerful move against him and the movement he supports than foolishly rioting. If anything, all that did was empowered him because he and the rest of those fools are using the protests to paint Liberals as the anti-freedom savages, which previously was the label that was held by the Right Wing.

 

[SneakDZA]

if a nazi can be in an intellectual setting they can get punched in an intellectual setting.

as a person who has actually punched a nazi dead in his shit before i feel like i can speak with a certain degree of authority here... if you think that there is something to be gained from having a polite debate with someone who at the core of their being thinks you should either not exist or be subservient to them then by all means go for it.

these are people that exterminated 12 million people in gas chambers not people who intellectually debated 12 million people.

 

[Will Munny]

So you'd advocate for physical violence against someone with an opposing view point even if that opposing viewpoint doesn't advocate for violence?