Milo Yiannopoulos comes to Berkeley tommorow. 1.9k people pledging to prostest. Prepare your Angus!!

[Rational Poster]

How many times do I have to tell you that the large UC campuses have their police forces? Are you still not aware of that fact?

Perhaps you ought to educate yourself about the basic administrative procedures used by UC Berkeley before you start thinking you have smart and appropriate questions on this topic, because you clearly don't understand shit.

Source that the UC police force did nothing?

From what I've seen in footage it was PD forces standing around.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

They are and they aren't. Okay, so there are violent outsiders infiltrating their protests and making them look bad. What are they going to do about it?

Students aren't responsible for campus security. They aren't paying 45,000 per year so they can be vigilantes. There was a police/security presence so your questioning should obviously be directed at them.

It's hard to claim innocence, when these few "trouble makers" are leading a march in the streets...

Where are you getting this info from? I don't believe you.

 

[HereticBD]

FOX is kicking serious ass as a single network, no denying that.

But the combined viewer share of the liberal leaning media is far ahead of fox.

Combined doesn't really mean much, unless they are all sharing in the profits. CNN ratings are falling, and it would make sense for them to change their current direction to the mold of a more successful network, if all they cared about was ratings.

 

[sub_thug]

I'm sure they are because the only thing colleges hate more than violent and destructive protests are lawsuits.

They likely are for that reason. Although you would be absolutely amazed at all the crime that schools try to downplay so that they can make their campuses appear safer than they are.

 

[Cold Front]

Source that the UC police force did nothing?

Keep up. I just did.

From what I've seen in footage it was PD forces standing around.

They *both* stood around.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Yeah, it's clear as shit.

Enforcing the law is fascist, right? Dumbass.

It's not justice in America unless people throwing smoke bombs get a truncheon to the head.

Just admit it... If the police had shot and killed a few of these protesters you would feel it was a reasonable use of force and that the kids had it coming. We're all friends here. Let it out. It's OK, bro.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Love the Trump cultists on here... It's clear nothing short of a Kent State level massacre would have satisfied them in terms of the law enforcement response in Berkeley.

agree, some people want death and bloodshed. Over at Breitbart the comments section filled with that type of talk.

Then they'll tell you about how we're missing religion in our lives or some nonsense.

 

[ripskater]

You claimed the professors are calling for protests.

Yes I did say that.

The professors are allowed to do that. They're not calling for violence.

I agree that's most likely.

Unless you can source that they're calling for violence then what is the grievance.

I never said the professors are calling for violence. They are helping to create a dangerous situation by encouraging thousands of people to gather in the midst of a few dozen violent rioters.

 

[Rational Poster]

Combined doesn't really mean much, unless they are all sharing in the profits. CNN ratings are falling, and it would make sense for them to change their current direction to the mold of a more successful network, if all they cared about was ratings.

Why doesn't it mean much?

There are just as many if not more liberals news viewers, there are just more networks competing for that viewer base.

 

[klnOmega]

Soros has been caught paying protestors to go incite violence 100 times over. I don't doubt that these were Soros' operatives. The thing is, other protestors need to start shutting these guys down, not protecting them.

 

[Rational Poster]

Yes I did say that.

I agree that's most likely.

I never said the professors are calling for violence. They are helping to create a dangerous situation by encouraging thousands of people to gather in the midst of a few dozen violent rioters.

If college isn't a place to voice your opinion as a group in protest anymore please let us know where is more suitable to you because that's where it has always been done historically.

 

[Toastytoy]

"A total of six protesters were reportedly arrested by Sunday morning."

point being?

 

[Cold Front]

It's not justice in America unless people throwing smoke bombs get a truncheon to the head.

They were throwing more than smoke bombs, you jackass. They were assaulting people and destroying property.

In other words, they were breaking the law, which meant that law enforcement had not only the right but the duty to step in and arrest them using the appropriate level of force necessary to accomplish those aims.

They failed at their job because they answer to civilians who aren't comfortable with any level of force.

 

[Rational Poster]

point being?

Your claim is that the school is being complicit here, but if they are complicit why are there repercussions when these protests turn violent?

 

[Lanx]

Liberals actions having opposite effect

 

[n...not crazy]

Love the Trump cultists on here... It's clear nothing short of a Kent State level massacre would have satisfied them in terms of the law enforcement response in Berkeley.

Or perhaps crowd control/partition at a level where the planned event could take place. Does this require murder? If you say so.

 

[Cold Front]

Once again, just for the uninformed jackasses here who continue to believe that the UC system is not to blame for this.

'It Was Just Horrific': UC Berkeley Students Question Seemingly Tepid Police Response to Violent Protests

However, university spokesman Dan Mogulof said dozens of police officers were brought in from nine of the UC system’s 10 campuses to assist with the Yiannopoulos event that was scheduled for 8 p.m. He argued that the violence didn’t escalate further because police officers did not respond aggressively to protesters.

“They used paramilitary tactics, were armed, covered from head to toe, wearing masks,” he said of the violent protesters, which he deemed “totally unprecedented on this campus.”​

The university took the lead in providing security for the event by using UC police officers. They were *assisted* by local law enforcement.

And this dumbass UC spokesman is praising the tepid police response by saying it would have been worse if they had acted and done their jobs.

 

[ultramanhyata]

They were throwing more than smoke bombs, you jackass. They were assaulting people and destroying property.

In other words, they were breaking the law, which meant that law enforcement had not only the right but the duty to step in and arrest them using the appropriate level of force necessary to accomplish those aims.

They failed at their job because they answer to civilians who aren't comfortable with any level of force.

Source the worst injury suffered by a bystander as a direct result of a violent protester at the Berkeley campus.

 

[Jack V Savage]

1. Critiques do not make a philosophy, and the architects of postmodernism as is were not of the right as an as of now verifiable fact. That's like saying "Well, Nietzsche agreed with a few critiques of Hobbes, Hobbes is more to the right, therefore Nietzsche on the right."

This misses the point. Derrida was a man of the left, but what is called left-wing cultural critiques are just borrowed from the right and slightly repackaged.

2. We agree in principle, but there is a major problem there with the current strain of the left.

How can any culture or viewpoint evolve without criticism or objective testing from the... outside? The outside in any discipline offers the best view, but today's multiculturalism will not tolerate those criticisms.

It can't. And multiculturalism was a fad that has long-ago run its course on the left. It's mostly dead today.

"Black communities have X amount more violent crime than the national..." shouted down by a mantra of "it's poverty, history, and oppression!" no, those factors may contribute to the problem, but that is obvious false rationalization for the cultural factors that are leading to the violence.

Oh, that's silly. What you call "shouting down" just sounds like an expansion of the discussion and an attempt to answer a question. I would say that unnamed "cultural factors" are an obvious false rationalization designed to avoid confronting realistic but politically unpalatable solutions (though note that crime has been plunging around the country since the 1990s, meaning that we're on our way).

Adding to that, for the most part you're talking about a right from 1968. Most on the right want those subcultures to adapt if they want to have success, the left would demand that they keep their culture and that the right accept it carte blanche... or else be shamed back to their caves of intolerance.

Again, this is a really dated argument. As I mentioned, crime has been falling hard (seems like the decline has leveled recently). The big discussion among people who study it has been "why has it fallen so much, and why did it rise before?" rather than "oh what are we going to do about this crime problem?" And the more specific critique of your hypothetical right (that wants "those subcultures to adapt so they can have success") is that past policy still has a huge impact on economic success (for example, even after controlling for income and educational attainment, whites are still far wealthier on average, largely owing to much greater intergenerational wealth transfers--such as inheritance and parents paying for college/cars/down payments on homes, etc.). This is not rocket science. If you want to understand the issue, you'll be able to. If you want to shout down serious inquiry, you could miss it.

3. I disagree because we do, and I can readily demonstrate how it is cultural and not color based.

It doesn't matter if you disagree with my claim. You asked:

"If we look at something like race, what is the better way to maintain a sense of union? Is it to have a color blind society that does not judge on skin color, or to try to find supposed cognitive biases everywhere in an attempt to make a fair society?"

If you want to have a color-blind society that does not judge on skin color, you want to identify and address cognitive biases and make it so.

The right to it's credit is not interested in the color of your skin, they are interested in the culture they fought for and while not at all perfect in any respect, America has been a great force of freedom and civic greatness for generations, the left is unequivocally creating a complicated framework of who is privileged, shamed, oppressed, oppressor ECT...

That first sentence seems absurd if you've been following politics the past year. If you're a member of a big majority, you don't tend to define yourself in terms of it, granted. You're just a regular person. If you're not, you're constantly reminded of it. As America has become less white, more people have begun to think of themselves specifically as white. And that's where we get this flood of people dropping buzzwords like "white genocide" and "demographic replacement" that are totally alien to a liberal outlook, just as the left has moved away from that kind of illiberal outlook, outside of fringe elements on college campuses (that the far right gives greatly disproportionate attention to because they have a symbiotic relationship).

With little or no regards to character, it is all a redundant hierarchy of black/brown/yellow/green/pink, gay, and woman good, and old white, man, and straight intolerant and hateful until proven otherwise on the altar of New Left shame. That is not a fair system of thought and just as bad or worse than the dominant culture forcing conformity to its views for mainstream success.

You're stuck in the '60s, and missing what has gone on with the right (specifically, the fall of the religious right and the rise of the ethnonationalist "alt right" to a dominant place in Republican politics). The mainstream left is all about Enlightenment values. Even at the level of the average uninformed voter, admiration of science is extremely high (in the abstract). The climate change discussion really illustrates the gap. The left sees it as obviously true and hugely important, and the opposition as being irredeemably stupid. The right sees it as racial redistribution and sees the opposition as being evil.

 

[HereticBD]

Students aren't responsible for campus security. They aren't paying 45,000 per year so they can be vigilantes. There was a police/security presence so your questioning should obviously be directed at them.

They should care about their image as peaceful protesters, and vehemently denounce ANTIFA's actions on every platform they have. They have no problem denouncing their perceived hate speech/racism/sexism on their microphones. Will they speak out against the group that is hurting their image at the next rally? Doubt it.

Where are you getting this info from? I don't believe you.

You didn't see the sea of unmasked protesters marching with ANTIFA down the streets, being led with "BECOME UNGOVERNABLE", and "THIS IS WAR" banners? They weren't all ANTIFA.