Cal Berkeley Students Shut Down Campus Protesting Milo Yiannopoulos

[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.

It's different because black scholars were fightin' for rights and these alt right cacs incite hatred and violence with their ideas. Also, you can't take down an alt right figure intellectually because racism isn't an intellectual position

Again, the point isn't necessarily to take him down. It is to reveal the ridiculousness of his position so that people will be less likely to subscribe to it. And yes black scholars are not the same as alt-right racists, but that is not relevant to the point being made.

 

[CeLLaR-DooR]

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.

It's different because black scholars were fightin' for rights and these alt right cacs incite hatred and violence with their ideas. Also, you can't take down an alt right figure intellectually because racism isn't an intellectual position

Again, the point isn't necessarily to take him down. It is to reveal the ridiculousness of his position so that people will be less likely to subscribe to it. And yes black scholars are not the same as alt-right racists, but that is not relevant to the point being made.

It is relevant because freedom of speech isn't the right to say whatever you want. Alt right views don't hold up against any level of scrutiny yet white people been eatin' the shit up for God knows how long. The ridiculousness is apparent from the jump fam it's separatist, it's dangerous and anti intellectual so I wouldn't let someone like Milo talk at my university

 

[The Lonious Monk]

It is relevant because freedom of speech isn't the right to say whatever you want. Alt right views don't hold up against any level of scrutiny yet white people been eatin' the shit up for God knows how long. The ridiculousness is apparent from the jump fam it's separatist, it's dangerous and anti intellectual so I wouldn't let someone like Milo talk at my university

If it's so easy to destroy his point, then why are ya'll so resistant to doing it? Let the man say his peace, trash his stance, and everyone can move on. That's much easier than trying to silence him, which comes of more as people being afraid to deal with what he's saying. White people been eating the shit up because no one really knocks it down. We need more people to do what Roland Martin did and less people just trying to avoid the confrontation.

 

[CeLLaR-DooR]

It is relevant because freedom of speech isn't the right to say whatever you want. Alt right views don't hold up against any level of scrutiny yet white people been eatin' the shit up for God knows how long. The ridiculousness is apparent from the jump fam it's separatist, it's dangerous and anti intellectual so I wouldn't let someone like Milo talk at my university

If it's so easy to destroy his point, then why are ya'll so resistant to doing it? Let the man say his peace, trash his stance, and everyone can move on. That's much easier than trying to silence him, which comes of more as people being afraid to deal with what he's saying. White people been eating the shit up because no one really knocks it down. We need more people to do what Roland Martin did and less people just trying to avoid the confrontation.

I'm not sayin' it's easy to destroy his point. Quite the opposite. Alt right views are pretty much entirely visceral so it's difficult to argue against. They come with specious argument after specious argument.

I don't see why these people are given the time of day, let alone put on podiums. Let them have their rallies, I've nothin' against that.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

It is relevant because freedom of speech isn't the right to say whatever you want. Alt right views don't hold up against any level of scrutiny yet white people been eatin' the shit up for God knows how long. The ridiculousness is apparent from the jump fam it's separatist, it's dangerous and anti intellectual so I wouldn't let someone like Milo talk at my university

If it's so easy to destroy his point, then why are ya'll so resistant to doing it? Let the man say his peace, trash his stance, and everyone can move on. That's much easier than trying to silence him, which comes of more as people being afraid to deal with what he's saying. White people been eating the shit up because no one really knocks it down. We need more people to do what Roland Martin did and less people just trying to avoid the confrontation.

I'm not sayin' it's easy to destroy his point. Quite the opposite. Alt right views are pretty much entirely visceral so it's difficult to argue against. They come with specious argument after specious argument.

I don't see why these people are given the time of day, let alone put on podiums. Let them have their rallies, I've nothin' against that.

It's not hard at all to destroy their arguments. All they do is use stats out of context and ignore facts and historical precedents. They are no different than feminists and other over-the-top SJWs. All these extremists just misrepresent shit to make their point. It's not hard presenting truth.

 

[CeLLaR-DooR]

It is relevant because freedom of speech isn't the right to say whatever you want. Alt right views don't hold up against any level of scrutiny yet white people been eatin' the shit up for God knows how long. The ridiculousness is apparent from the jump fam it's separatist, it's dangerous and anti intellectual so I wouldn't let someone like Milo talk at my university

If it's so easy to destroy his point, then why are ya'll so resistant to doing it? Let the man say his peace, trash his stance, and everyone can move on. That's much easier than trying to silence him, which comes of more as people being afraid to deal with what he's saying. White people been eating the shit up because no one really knocks it down. We need more people to do what Roland Martin did and less people just trying to avoid the confrontation.

I'm not sayin' it's easy to destroy his point. Quite the opposite. Alt right views are pretty much entirely visceral so it's difficult to argue against. They come with specious argument after specious argument.

I don't see why these people are given the time of day, let alone put on podiums. Let them have their rallies, I've nothin' against that.

It's not hard at all to destroy their arguments. All they do is use stats out of context and ignore facts and historical precedents. They are no different than feminists and other over-the-top SJWs. All these extremists just misrepresent shit to make their point. It's not hard presenting truth.

Bruh if it's so difficult how is Trump president? How is this Milo even in a position to be protested? Its because their supporters don't care about logic, they care about race or are anti Muslim or are, at the very very least, indifferent to extreme racism. We're livin' in what people are callin' Post Truth. Alternative facts. It's dangerous and these people shouldn't be given platforms to spread hate

 

[The Lonious Monk]

It is relevant because freedom of speech isn't the right to say whatever you want. Alt right views don't hold up against any level of scrutiny yet white people been eatin' the shit up for God knows how long. The ridiculousness is apparent from the jump fam it's separatist, it's dangerous and anti intellectual so I wouldn't let someone like Milo talk at my university

If it's so easy to destroy his point, then why are ya'll so resistant to doing it? Let the man say his peace, trash his stance, and everyone can move on. That's much easier than trying to silence him, which comes of more as people being afraid to deal with what he's saying. White people been eating the shit up because no one really knocks it down. We need more people to do what Roland Martin did and less people just trying to avoid the confrontation.

I'm not sayin' it's easy to destroy his point. Quite the opposite. Alt right views are pretty much entirely visceral so it's difficult to argue against. They come with specious argument after specious argument.

I don't see why these people are given the time of day, let alone put on podiums. Let them have their rallies, I've nothin' against that.

It's not hard at all to destroy their arguments. All they do is use stats out of context and ignore facts and historical precedents. They are no different than feminists and other over-the-top SJWs. All these extremists just misrepresent shit to make their point. It's not hard presenting truth.

Bruh if it's so difficult how is Trump president? How is this Milo even in a position to be protested? Its because their supporters don't care about logic, they care about race or are anti Muslim or are, at the very very least, indifferent to extreme racism. We're livin' in what people are callin' Post Truth. Alternative facts. It's dangerous and these people shouldn't be given platforms to spread hate

Trump isn't president because the lies were hard to destroy. I don't know why people continue to think that Trump won because of some sure in people subscribing to that stupidity. Trump actually got less support in many places than McCain and Romney. Trump won because people simply did not come out to vote for Hillary. Right or wrong, people hated Hillary more than the Alt-Right.

You're right, this is the era of post truth and alt-facts, but part of the reason it's like that is because people with the truth don't present it as strongly as the liars too.

 

[CeLLaR-DooR]

It is relevant because freedom of speech isn't the right to say whatever you want. Alt right views don't hold up against any level of scrutiny yet white people been eatin' the shit up for God knows how long. The ridiculousness is apparent from the jump fam it's separatist, it's dangerous and anti intellectual so I wouldn't let someone like Milo talk at my university

If it's so easy to destroy his point, then why are ya'll so resistant to doing it? Let the man say his peace, trash his stance, and everyone can move on. That's much easier than trying to silence him, which comes of more as people being afraid to deal with what he's saying. White people been eating the shit up because no one really knocks it down. We need more people to do what Roland Martin did and less people just trying to avoid the confrontation.

I'm not sayin' it's easy to destroy his point. Quite the opposite. Alt right views are pretty much entirely visceral so it's difficult to argue against. They come with specious argument after specious argument.

I don't see why these people are given the time of day, let alone put on podiums. Let them have their rallies, I've nothin' against that.

It's not hard at all to destroy their arguments. All they do is use stats out of context and ignore facts and historical precedents. They are no different than feminists and other over-the-top SJWs. All these extremists just misrepresent shit to make their point. It's not hard presenting truth.

Bruh if it's so difficult how is Trump president? How is this Milo even in a position to be protested? Its because their supporters don't care about logic, they care about race or are anti Muslim or are, at the very very least, indifferent to extreme racism. We're livin' in what people are callin' Post Truth. Alternative facts. It's dangerous and these people shouldn't be given platforms to spread hate

Trump isn't president because the lies were hard to destroy. I don't know why people continue to think that Trump won because of some sure in people subscribing to that stupidity. Trump actually got less support in many places than McCain and Romney. Trump won because people simply did not come out to vote for Hillary. Right or wrong, people hated Hillary more than the Alt-Right.

You're right, this is the era of post truth and alt-facts, but part of the reason it's like that is because people with the truth don't present it as strongly as the liars too.

Hilary didn't win because Trump won.

You can't present the truth as strongly as a lie. You can just increase the strength of the lie as the debate progresses. While we're there with the truth and all of its caveats, these guys come with their simple lies that make sense if you don't out any thought in em.

From a philosophical point of view, I agree that any should be allowed to say anything and the individual person should be intelligent enough to tell truth from blatant crap but look what happens when you allow this to happen.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Hilary didn't win because Trump won.

You can't present the truth as strongly as a lie. You can just increase the strength of the lie as the debate progresses. While we're there with the truth and all of its caveats, these guys come with their simple lies that make sense if you don't out any thought in em.

From a philosophical point of view, I agree that any should be allowed to say anything and the individual person should be intelligent enough to tell truth from blatant crap but look what happens when you allow this to happen.

Well we can agree to disagree. The facts don't really support that masses of people believing extremist lies won the election for Trump, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Yeah the media peddled lies throughout the campaign, but the thing is a lot of Trump supporters didn't even believe the lies. They just voted for him because they didn't want to vote for Hillary.

On a completely different note, did any of the media outlets refer to the protesters/rioters as thugs? Just curious.

 

[CeLLaR-DooR]

Hilary didn't win because Trump won.

You can't present the truth as strongly as a lie. You can just increase the strength of the lie as the debate progresses. While we're there with the truth and all of its caveats, these guys come with their simple lies that make sense if you don't out any thought in em.

From a philosophical point of view, I agree that any should be allowed to say anything and the individual person should be intelligent enough to tell truth from blatant crap but look what happens when you allow this to happen.

Well we can agree to disagree. The facts don't really support that masses of people believing extremist lies won the election for Trump, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Yeah the media peddled lies throughout the campaign, but the thing is a lot of Trump supporters didn't even believe the lies. They just voted for him because they didn't want to vote for Hillary.

On a completely different note, did any of the media outlets refer to the protesters/rioters as thugs? Just curious.

There's no way of knowin' who fell for the lies and who didn't. I'm not sure it matters tho'. Votin' for a known liar with current discrimination cases who boasts about abusin' women while makin' fun of disabled people and not showin' his tax returns or puttin' his businesses in a blind trust because he isn't Hillary is as stupid (more, I'd say) as believin' that he was gonna 'clean up the swamp'.

We had sutten similar over here with Brexit. The (mostly Conservative) Leavers told lie after lie. After they won and the lies were exposed, people began changin' the reason they voted. All of a sudden, it wasn't because there was a bus with a banner that said, 'x amounts of billions that goes to Brussels can go to the NHS' or about immigration. They claim it was about sovereignty which can't be true for a number of reasons.

People are stupid man. They won't admit they fell for propaganda and hurt the country because of it. I'd imagine quite a few Trump supporters are the same, but on a larger and worse scale.

Not sure about the thug thing. Prolly not, tho'

 

[(Nope)]

Thanks @CeLLaR-DooR I appreciate that solidarity and you drawing that parallel. We need that Brexit information from you, so we have a frame of reference for what might happen next.

@Thelonious I get it, and in a perfect world what you're saying makes sense. But, have you tried to engage these people? Because I have. They don't care about the truth.

You're a smart dude, but it appears you're eschewing context for what's ideal.

Also, equating feminism with the alt right is dishonest fam. The goal of feminsim, womanism, and Relational Cultural Theory is to develop a culture of commonality through understanding. It asks you to empathize. But, it is not ideal and often marked by superficial expressions of solidarity as well as exclusivity. However, feminists can be engaged academically as feminsim has its roots in academia.

The alt right is an amorphous fuck barrel of hatred with origins in 4 chan.

 

[(Nope)]

Hilary didn't win because Trump won.

You can't present the truth as strongly as a lie. You can just increase the strength of the lie as the debate progresses. While we're there with the truth and all of its caveats, these guys come with their simple lies that make sense if you don't out any thought in em.

From a philosophical point of view, I agree that any should be allowed to say anything and the individual person should be intelligent enough to tell truth from blatant crap but look what happens when you allow this to happen.

Well we can agree to disagree. The facts don't really support that masses of people believing extremist lies won the election for Trump, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Yeah the media peddled lies throughout the campaign, but the thing is a lot of Trump supporters didn't even believe the lies. They just voted for him because they didn't want to vote for Hillary.

On a completely different note, did any of the media outlets refer to the protesters/rioters as thugs? Just curious.

They did refer to them as thugs. Certainly on Fox and other right wing news outlets.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Thanks @CeLLaR-DooR I appreciate that solidarity and you drawing that parallel. We need that Brexit information from you, so we have a frame of reference for what might happen next.

@Thelonious I get it, and in a perfect world what you're saying makes sense. But, have you tried to engage these people? Because I have. They don't care about the truth.

You're a smart dude, but it appears you're eschewing context for what's ideal.

Also, equating feminism with the alt right is dishonest fam. The goal of feminsim, womanism, and Relational Cultural Theory is to develop a culture of commonality through understanding. It asks you to empathize. But, it is not ideal and often marked by superficial expressions of solidarity as well as exclusivity. However, feminists can be engaged academically as feminsim has its roots in academia.

The alt right is an amorphous fuck barrel of hatred with origins in 4 chan.

Yeah, I've engaged them. Some of them are too far gone. Some of them believed the lies. And some of them suffer from tunnel vision where they focus on one thing said that they believe and ignore absolutely everything else. The first group can't be helped, but there are plenty of people in the other two groups that can be. There are also the people who haven't really picked a side. The best way to get those people on your side is to destroy the other side.

Hilary didn't win because Trump won.

You can't present the truth as strongly as a lie. You can just increase the strength of the lie as the debate progresses. While we're there with the truth and all of its caveats, these guys come with their simple lies that make sense if you don't out any thought in em.

From a philosophical point of view, I agree that any should be allowed to say anything and the individual person should be intelligent enough to tell truth from blatant crap but look what happens when you allow this to happen.

Well we can agree to disagree. The facts don't really support that masses of people believing extremist lies won the election for Trump, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Yeah the media peddled lies throughout the campaign, but the thing is a lot of Trump supporters didn't even believe the lies. They just voted for him because they didn't want to vote for Hillary.

On a completely different note, did any of the media outlets refer to the protesters/rioters as thugs? Just curious.

They did refer to them as thugs. Certainly on Fox and other right wing news outlets.

Well, at least that word is no longer used exclusively for us. That's progress I guess.

 

[(Nope)]

Thanks @CeLLaR-DooR I appreciate that solidarity and you drawing that parallel. We need that Brexit information from you, so we have a frame of reference for what might happen next.

@Thelonious I get it, and in a perfect world what you're saying makes sense. But, have you tried to engage these people? Because I have. They don't care about the truth.

You're a smart dude, but it appears you're eschewing context for what's ideal.

Also, equating feminism with the alt right is dishonest fam. The goal of feminsim, womanism, and Relational Cultural Theory is to develop a culture of commonality through understanding. It asks you to empathize. But, it is not ideal and often marked by superficial expressions of solidarity as well as exclusivity. However, feminists can be engaged academically as feminsim has its roots in academia.

The alt right is an amorphous fuck barrel of hatred with origins in 4 chan.

Yeah, I've engaged them. Some of them are too far gone. Some of them believed the lies. And some of them suffer from tunnel vision where they focus on one thing said that they believe and ignore absolutely everything else. The first group can't be helped, but there are plenty of people in the other two groups that can be. There are also the people who haven't really picked a side. The best way to get those people on your side is to destroy the other side.

Hilary didn't win because Trump won.

You can't present the truth as strongly as a lie. You can just increase the strength of the lie as the debate progresses. While we're there with the truth and all of its caveats, these guys come with their simple lies that make sense if you don't out any thought in em.

From a philosophical point of view, I agree that any should be allowed to say anything and the individual person should be intelligent enough to tell truth from blatant crap but look what happens when you allow this to happen.

Well we can agree to disagree. The facts don't really support that masses of people believing extremist lies won the election for Trump, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Yeah the media peddled lies throughout the campaign, but the thing is a lot of Trump supporters didn't even believe the lies. They just voted for him because they didn't want to vote for Hillary.

On a completely different note, did any of the media outlets refer to the protesters/rioters as thugs? Just curious.

They did refer to them as thugs. Certainly on Fox and other right wing news outlets.

Well, at least that word is no longer used exclusively for us. That's progress I guess.

I hear you, but I'm still in my 'punch them in the face stage.'

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Thanks @CeLLaR-DooR I appreciate that solidarity and you drawing that parallel. We need that Brexit information from you, so we have a frame of reference for what might happen next.

@Thelonious I get it, and in a perfect world what you're saying makes sense. But, have you tried to engage these people? Because I have. They don't care about the truth.

You're a smart dude, but it appears you're eschewing context for what's ideal.

Also, equating feminism with the alt right is dishonest fam. The goal of feminsim, womanism, and Relational Cultural Theory is to develop a culture of commonality through understanding. It asks you to empathize. But, it is not ideal and often marked by superficial expressions of solidarity as well as exclusivity. However, feminists can be engaged academically as feminsim has its roots in academia.

The alt right is an amorphous fuck barrel of hatred with origins in 4 chan.

Yeah, I've engaged them. Some of them are too far gone. Some of them believed the lies. And some of them suffer from tunnel vision where they focus on one thing said that they believe and ignore absolutely everything else. The first group can't be helped, but there are plenty of people in the other two groups that can be. There are also the people who haven't really picked a side. The best way to get those people on your side is to destroy the other side.

Hilary didn't win because Trump won.

You can't present the truth as strongly as a lie. You can just increase the strength of the lie as the debate progresses. While we're there with the truth and all of its caveats, these guys come with their simple lies that make sense if you don't out any thought in em.

From a philosophical point of view, I agree that any should be allowed to say anything and the individual person should be intelligent enough to tell truth from blatant crap but look what happens when you allow this to happen.

Well we can agree to disagree. The facts don't really support that masses of people believing extremist lies won the election for Trump, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Yeah the media peddled lies throughout the campaign, but the thing is a lot of Trump supporters didn't even believe the lies. They just voted for him because they didn't want to vote for Hillary.

On a completely different note, did any of the media outlets refer to the protesters/rioters as thugs? Just curious.

They did refer to them as thugs. Certainly on Fox and other right wing news outlets.

Well, at least that word is no longer used exclusively for us. That's progress I guess.

I hear you, but I'm still in my 'punch them in the face stage.'

lol I tend to think violence should only be used in self defense. That said, I'm not the kind of person to really give a fuck if someone who deserves to be punched in the face gets punched in the face. I just stress that we should use discernment in who we approach like that because not everyone that you think is an irredeemable enemy actually is.

 

[JokerzWyld]

I wonder what Stephen A. Smith thinks of this.