Cal Berkeley Students Shut Down Campus Protesting Milo Yiannopoulos

[rapmusic]

Thanks for making this guy a household name smh.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

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.

The debate with them is not for them it's for people on the outside. You're right, in most cases you're not going to be able to change the mind of someone who wholeheartedly subscribes to that bullshit. However, there are a lot of people out there who give some of the things said credence because they don't know any better (stupid I know, but that's how it is). Crushing him intellectually is how you deter a lot of those people.

Think about it like this. Don't you think it was a strong statement when Roland Martin made Richard Spencer look stupid? He didn't change Spencer's mind, but you can bet there were people that thought Spencer might have been credible who began to think twice about it. I'm saying that we shouldn't shy away from doing what Martin did.

 

[SneakDZA]

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

I'm not sure what your school taught you about Nazis, Neo Nazi's, the KKK, fascists, the alt-right, white nationalists, the National Front, Golden Dawn, or whatever they choose to rebrand themselves as but the way I understand it they advocate for violence. Even if they're too pussy to come right out and say it I don't play those games with those people.

This isn't an opposing viewpoint we're talking about, this is base-level human survival.

 

[desertrain10]

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.

the appropriate setting to exchange and challenge ideas in an academic environment is in a structured setting with some sort of mediator, not milo by himself on a stage standing before young impressionable students

and how do you argue with ppl who obviously disregard facts, don't live in reality

the students were wrong for rioting, but inviting/allowing someone with his reputation and past, in that setting was flat out a bad idea

 

[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.

The debate with them is not for them it's for people on the outside. You're right, in most cases you're not going to be able to change the mind of someone who wholeheartedly subscribes to that bullshit. However, there are a lot of people out there who give some of the things said credence because they don't know any better (stupid I know, but that's how it is). Crushing him intellectually is how you deter a lot of those people.

Think about it like this. Don't you think it was a strong statement when Roland Martin made Richard Spencer look stupid? He didn't change Spencer's mind, but you can bet there were people that thought Spencer might have been credible who began to think twice about it. I'm saying that we shouldn't shy away from doing what Martin did.

I actually liked it better when he got punched in his face. Keep trying to reason with these people, though.

Also let's be clear... what was scheduled to happen was not a debate. It was a recruitment drive.

 

[KingFreeman]

I think Milo is gay in the same way people on here think zombie is black. I think he's probably not even gay it's just part of his self promotion to make him seem like less of a right wing schill.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

the appropriate setting to exchange and challenge ideas in an academic environment is in a structured setting with some sort of mediator, not milo by himself on a stage standing before young impressionable students

and how do you argue with ppl who obviously disregard facts, don't live in reality

the students were wrong for rioting, but inviting/allowing someone with his reputation and past, in that setting was flat out a bad idea

I can agree with that. It should have been a debate. But stop with the "young impressionable students" stuff. It's a university not a high school. You don't go to college to be protected from the real world. You got be exposed to it, trained to exist in it, and prepared for it.

You're right though, some people can't be helped no matter what you do, but not everyone who subscribes to that side is that far gone.

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.

The debate with them is not for them it's for people on the outside. You're right, in most cases you're not going to be able to change the mind of someone who wholeheartedly subscribes to that bullshit. However, there are a lot of people out there who give some of the things said credence because they don't know any better (stupid I know, but that's how it is). Crushing him intellectually is how you deter a lot of those people.

Think about it like this. Don't you think it was a strong statement when Roland Martin made Richard Spencer look stupid? He didn't change Spencer's mind, but you can bet there were people that thought Spencer might have been credible who began to think twice about it. I'm saying that we shouldn't shy away from doing what Martin did.

I actually liked it better when he got punched in his face. Keep trying to reason with these people, though.

Also let's be clear... what was scheduled to happen was not a debate. It was a recruitment drive.

lol That's fair. We can agree to disagree. I mean I can't say I had a problem with him getting punched in the face. I just think the intellectual beating hurts his cause more.

And you're right about the format they were running with. I wouldn't have had a problem with the protest demanding that there be the inclusion of someone with an alternate viewpoint. But I do feel that the response they went with was wrong.

 

[Plutarch]

@SneakDZA

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

I thought as much, though I'm not sure what "bullshit" you're referring to, because that's honestly the last thing I'd describe what I saying and the very thing I'd describe what you have or might have said.

With that said you need to look up what freedom of speech actually means. No one's freedom of speech was violated or stifled.

I disagree for, I hope, obvious reasons. Yiannopoulos seemed to have been invited to a university to talk, and his talk was violently "stifled." Perhaps I should be specific and clarify that his First Amendment rights were violated. The First Amendment includes freedom of assembly. Is that not fair?

In fact people used their freedom to assemble to keep a neo-nazi (no quotes) out of their zone.

That seems like an odd thing to say. Yes, some people did use their freedom to assemble to protest. I don't believe anyone is disputing that. Why would anyone? What I am disputing is the rioting and violence that some used to carry out this "protest" to stifle another person's freedom to assemble. And again, I don't think it matters whether he is or is not a neo-nazi.

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.

I'm not sure whether what you're saying here is disingenuous or just ridiculous. If you still think I'm playing devil's advocate, I will reiterate the point that you have failed to understand my point. It seems you're doing this willfully. I don't know how clearer I can be. Meh.

 

[Will Munny]

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.

The debate with them is not for them it's for people on the outside. You're right, in most cases you're not going to be able to change the mind of someone who wholeheartedly subscribes to that bullshit. However, there are a lot of people out there who give some of the things said credence because they don't know any better (stupid I know, but that's how it is). Crushing him intellectually is how you deter a lot of those people.

Think about it like this. Don't you think it was a strong statement when Roland Martin made Richard Spencer look stupid? He didn't change Spencer's mind, but you can bet there were people that thought Spencer might have been credible who began to think twice about it. I'm saying that we shouldn't shy away from doing what Martin did.

I actually liked it better when he got punched in his face. Keep trying to reason with these people, though.

Also let's be clear... what was scheduled to happen was not a debate. It was a recruitment drive.

How do you know it was a recruitment drive?

 

[desertrain10]

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.

The debate with them is not for them it's for people on the outside. You're right, in most cases you're not going to be able to change the mind of someone who wholeheartedly subscribes to that bullshit. However, there are a lot of people out there who give some of the things said credence because they don't know any better (stupid I know, but that's how it is). Crushing him intellectually is how you deter a lot of those people.

Think about it like this. Don't you think it was a strong statement when Roland Martin made Richard Spencer look stupid? He didn't change Spencer's mind, but you can bet there were people that thought Spencer might have been credible who began to think twice about it. I'm saying that we shouldn't shy away from doing what Martin did.

I actually liked it better when he got punched in his face. Keep trying to reason with these people, though.

Also let's be clear... what was scheduled to happen was not a debate. It was a recruitment drive.

How do you know it was a recruitment drive?

had they not rioted

that is all it would have amounted to

 

[Will Munny]

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.

The debate with them is not for them it's for people on the outside. You're right, in most cases you're not going to be able to change the mind of someone who wholeheartedly subscribes to that bullshit. However, there are a lot of people out there who give some of the things said credence because they don't know any better (stupid I know, but that's how it is). Crushing him intellectually is how you deter a lot of those people.

Think about it like this. Don't you think it was a strong statement when Roland Martin made Richard Spencer look stupid? He didn't change Spencer's mind, but you can bet there were people that thought Spencer might have been credible who began to think twice about it. I'm saying that we shouldn't shy away from doing what Martin did.

I actually liked it better when he got punched in his face. Keep trying to reason with these people, though.

Also let's be clear... what was scheduled to happen was not a debate. It was a recruitment drive.

How do you know it was a recruitment drive?

had they not rioted

that is all it would have amounted to

He went to Berkeley of all places for a reason... cause he knew it would be publicity for his book. He's a whore, not a recruiter.

That doesn't answer my question as to what would lead someone to believe it's a recruiting drive.

 

[SneakDZA]

Correct me if i'm wrong but we're actually assassinating U.S. Citizens abroad (and their children) for expressing anti-American sentiments because they radicalize jihadists.

Please cry me your tears about Nazi free speech once you're done crying about that.

 

[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?

I'm not sure what your school taught you about Nazis, Neo Nazi's, the KKK, fascists, the alt-right, white nationalists, the National Front, Golden Dawn, or whatever they choose to rebrand themselves as but the way I understand it they advocate for violence. Even if they're too pussy to come right out and say it I don't play those games with those people.

This isn't an opposing viewpoint we're talking about, this is base-level human survival.

So if you assume they advocate for violence, no proof needed, it's okay to be violent. Got it. Because while getting your start with the Daily Stormer is pretty damning, I've yet to see anything Milo has said that would advocate for what the Nazi's did during WWII. The riots played right into his hand.

Justifying violence because you cant fight someone's ideas with other ideas leads down a very dangerous road.

 

[Will Munny]

Correct me if i'm wrong but we're actually assassinating U.S. Citizens abroad (and their children) for expressing anti-American sentiments because they radicalize jihadists.

Please cry me your tears about Nazi free speech once you're done crying about that.

This is a prime example of what happens you can't fight ideas with ideas so you bomb them instead, not why you're bringing that up tho.

 

[SneakDZA]

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

I'm not sure what your school taught you about Nazis, Neo Nazi's, the KKK, fascists, the alt-right, white nationalists, the National Front, Golden Dawn, or whatever they choose to rebrand themselves as but the way I understand it they advocate for violence. Even if they're too pussy to come right out and say it I don't play those games with those people.

This isn't an opposing viewpoint we're talking about, this is base-level human survival.

So if you assume they advocate for violence, no proof needed, it's okay to be violent. Got it. Because while getting your start with the Daily Stormer is pretty damning, I've yet to see anything Milo has said that would advocate for what the Nazi's did during WWII. The riots played right into his hand.

Justifying violence because you cant fight someone's ideas with other ideas leads down a very dangerous road.

Because while getting your start with the Daily Stormer is pretty damning

you should have just stopped there.

I don't give racist nazi skinheads the benefit of the doubt. maybe you have that comfort level with them but as i said before for me it's basic survival - if you associate with neonazis or the kkk or whatever they want to call themselves nowadays i don't have to pretend like we're involved in civil discourse anymore. Once again... these people gassed 12 million people to death just 70 years ago.

But keep playing games with them. they were gassing midgets too.

 

[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?

I'm not sure what your school taught you about Nazis, Neo Nazi's, the KKK, fascists, the alt-right, white nationalists, the National Front, Golden Dawn, or whatever they choose to rebrand themselves as but the way I understand it they advocate for violence. Even if they're too pussy to come right out and say it I don't play those games with those people.

This isn't an opposing viewpoint we're talking about, this is base-level human survival.

So if you assume they advocate for violence, no proof needed, it's okay to be violent. Got it. Because while getting your start with the Daily Stormer is pretty damning, I've yet to see anything Milo has said that would advocate for what the Nazi's did during WWII. The riots played right into his hand.

Justifying violence because you cant fight someone's ideas with other ideas leads down a very dangerous road.

Because while getting your start with the Daily Stormer is pretty damning

you should have just stopped there.

I don't give racist nazi skinheads the benefit of the doubt. maybe you have that comfort level with them but as i said before for me it's basic survival - if you associate with neonazis or the kkk or whatever they want to call themselves nowadays i don't have to pretend like we're involved in civil discourse anymore. Once again... these people gassed 12 million people to death just 70 years ago.

But keep playing games with them. they were gassing midgets too.

lolzzzz well if they were gassing the little people I guess we're on the same team then.

 

[SneakDZA]

@SneakDZA

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

I thought as much, though I'm not sure what "bullshit" you're referring to, because that's honestly the last thing I'd describe what I saying and the very thing I'd describe what you have or might have said.

With that said you need to look up what freedom of speech actually means. No one's freedom of speech was violated or stifled.

I disagree for, I hope, obvious reasons. Yiannopoulos seemed to have been invited to a university to talk, and his talk was violently "stifled." Perhaps I should be specific and clarify that his First Amendment rights were violated. The First Amendment includes freedom of assembly. Is that not fair?

In fact people used their freedom to assemble to keep a neo-nazi (no quotes) out of their zone.

That seems like an odd thing to say. Yes, some people did use their freedom to assemble to protest. I don't believe anyone is disputing that. Why would anyone? What I am disputing is the rioting and violence that some used to carry out this "protest" to stifle another person's freedom to assemble. And again, I don't think it matters whether he is or is not a neo-nazi.

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.

I'm not sure whether what you're saying here is disingenuous or just ridiculous. If you still think I'm playing devil's advocate, I will reiterate the point that you have failed to understand my point. It seems you're doing this willfully. I don't know how clearer I can be. Meh.

Ok i think the basis of our disagreement is that you seem to think violence is equally wrong in all forms even if no one is physically hurt. I actually think that's ridiculous and I don't consider "violence" against windows and garbage cans to be equivalent to inciting, stoking, acting upon or instilling the idea of violence against actual human beings based on denying them their right to freedom, justice and equality.

 

[desertrain10]

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.

The debate with them is not for them it's for people on the outside. You're right, in most cases you're not going to be able to change the mind of someone who wholeheartedly subscribes to that bullshit. However, there are a lot of people out there who give some of the things said credence because they don't know any better (stupid I know, but that's how it is). Crushing him intellectually is how you deter a lot of those people.

Think about it like this. Don't you think it was a strong statement when Roland Martin made Richard Spencer look stupid? He didn't change Spencer's mind, but you can bet there were people that thought Spencer might have been credible who began to think twice about it. I'm saying that we shouldn't shy away from doing what Martin did.

I actually liked it better when he got punched in his face. Keep trying to reason with these people, though.

Also let's be clear... what was scheduled to happen was not a debate. It was a recruitment drive.

How do you know it was a recruitment drive?

had they not rioted

that is all it would have amounted to

He went to Berkeley of all places for a reason... cause he knew it would be publicity for his book. He's a whore, not a recruiter.

what do you think the publicity would have done?

help in his effort to recruit ppl to further his cause, buy his book, grow his "movement"

That doesn't answer my question as to what would lead someone to believe it's a recruiting drive.

a person with his past and reputation going to speak not debate at a left leaning university

he was bound to leave with material

 

[Will Munny]

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.

The debate with them is not for them it's for people on the outside. You're right, in most cases you're not going to be able to change the mind of someone who wholeheartedly subscribes to that bullshit. However, there are a lot of people out there who give some of the things said credence because they don't know any better (stupid I know, but that's how it is). Crushing him intellectually is how you deter a lot of those people.

Think about it like this. Don't you think it was a strong statement when Roland Martin made Richard Spencer look stupid? He didn't change Spencer's mind, but you can bet there were people that thought Spencer might have been credible who began to think twice about it. I'm saying that we shouldn't shy away from doing what Martin did.

I actually liked it better when he got punched in his face. Keep trying to reason with these people, though.

Also let's be clear... what was scheduled to happen was not a debate. It was a recruitment drive.

How do you know it was a recruitment drive?

had they not rioted

that is all it would have amounted to

He went to Berkeley of all places for a reason... cause he knew it would be publicity for his book. He's a whore, not a recruiter.

what do you think the publicity would have done?

help in his effort to recruit ppl to further his cause, buy his book, grow his "movement"

That doesn't answer my question as to what would lead someone to believe it's a recruiting drive.

a person with his past and reputation going to speak not debate at a left leaning university

he was bound to leave with material

What do you think his cause is? The riots gave him a helluva lot publicity than anything else.

What do you mean leave with material? Not asking argumentitively.

 

[SneakDZA]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/teacher-suspended-swastika_us_5894b999e4b040613136a1af

I'm just gonna leave this here for people that don't see a bigger picture for what's going on in this society and want to keep appeasing this nazi shit