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

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Ban masks? What in the fuck

I didn't think it was possible to make a dumber post than:

but you may have succeeded.

In the same thread no less. LMAO

Why do you need a mask at a protest?

 

[xcvbn]

Smh

Props to the dude in the second video for having 100x more balls than the threadstarter and his Sherboyfriend who stood and watched the lunatics destroy property.

 

[xcvbn]

Why do you need a mask at a protest?

Fear of being fired? Fear of being discriminated? Because? Who gives a shit? That enough reasons? It really shouldn't matter though because wearing a mask hurts nobody.

Do we ban sunglasses next? Beanies? No more sun visors in vehicles because people can potentially hide their faces from traffic cameras....

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Fear of being fired? Fear of being discriminated? Because? Who gives a shit? That enough reasons? It really shouldn't matter though because wearing a mask hurts nobody.

Do we ban sunglasses next? Beanies? No more sun visors in vehicles because people can potentially hide their faces from traffic cameras....

You can't be fired for protesting, it's free speech and your right as a citizen.

I've been to plenty of protests over the years, never been fired or discriminated, never had to wear a mask. The only reason people wear masks to protests is because they do not want to be identified while engaging in disruption and criminal activity.

edit - also, pro tip. if you are at a protest, wear a suit and a tie. news stations are most likely to interview you, and give your message more exposure.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Fear of being fired? Fear of being discriminated? Because? Who gives a shit? That enough reasons? It really shouldn't matter though because wearing a mask hurts nobody.

Do we ban sunglasses next? Beanies? No more sun visors in vehicles because people can potentially hide their faces from traffic cameras....

Wearing a mask hurts nobody? It seems to me that the people destroying property and physically harming others are often wearing masks. The consistent disgusting behavior of the people who wear masks at protests has made it completely warranted to make it illegal to wear masks at a protest.

 

[Toastytoy]

Did you read it?

APPENDIX I: EMERGENCY SUSPENSION During a state of emergency, Chancellors or their designated representatives are empowered to impose Emergency Suspension on any student, faculty member, or employee when there is a reasonable cause to believe:

1. The individual has participated in a disturbance of the peace or unlawful assembly, or has acted in violation of the campus emergency orders, has committed an act of physical violence or has threatened to commit such an act, or has committed a theft or has damaged property; or

2. The individual's presence on campus will lead to violation of campus emergency orders, violence, intimidation, damage to property, or other disruptive activity incompatible with the orderly operation of the campus.

Correct, but these aren't unlawful protets.

I am unaware of any student in recent years being punished for activity like this. An unenforced rule is the same as not having a rule

In my opinion, they should add somthing to prevent speakers from being run out by angry mobs. I would like guys like Milo to have the same protections as the civil rights leaders of the 60s. But you seem to think they are doing everything they can, so i think we will have to agree to disagree here.

 

[xcvbn]

You can't be fired for protesting, it's free speech and your right as a citizen.

I've been to plenty of protests over the years, never been fired or discriminated, never had to wear a mask. The only reason people wear masks to protests is because they do not want to be identified while engaging in disruption and criminal activity.

Oh sure you won't be fired for protesting but you will be fired just because in at-will states and a reason will be found in other states.

Should we ban the tactical sunscreens in vehicles? Tactical sunglasses? Honest questions

 

[Rational Poster]

Correct, but these aren't unlawful protets.

I am unaware of any student in recent years being punished for activity like this. An unenforced rule is the same as not having a rule

In my opinion, they should add somthing to prevent speakers from being run out by angry mobs. I would like guys like Milo to have the same protections as the civil rights leaders of the 60s. But you seem to think they are doing everything they can, so i think we will have to agree to disagree here.

Protests that become violent and destructive are indeed unlawful by definition.

So you're just assuming now that students involved in violence or destruction of property on campus aren't being punished because why?

I'm not assuming either, I'm asking you to prove that they're not like you claim.

 

[xcvbn]

Wearing a mask hurts nobody? It seems to me that the people destroying property and physically harming others are often wearing masks. The consistent disgusting behavior of the people who wear masks at protests has made it completely warranted to make it illegal to wear masks at a protest.

It's a good thing we have laws against destroying property and assaulting people. Tell me again how the ski-masks themselves inflicted injury or caused damage.

I'll ask you the same: ban vehicle sunscreens? Sunglasses too? Hell we may as well throw umbrellas in too because they can conceal your face AND be used as a weapon. HORY SHET

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Oh sure you won't be fired for protesting but you will be fired just because in at-will states and a reason will be found in other states.

Should we ban the tactical sunscreens in vehicles? Tactical sunglasses? Honest questions

Is this your personal theory, or can you provide an example? Thus far, all we have seen is people in masks disrupting protests and trying to instigate cops to do crowd control on peaceful people.

As for your other question, none of those things have been an issue at protests thus far, masks have.

 

[dontsnitch]

You can't be fired for protesting, it's free speech and your right as a citizen.

Sure you can. Your employer can fire you if he thinks you damage his brand.

 

[xcvbn]

Is this your personal theory, or can you provide an example? Thus far, all we have seen is people in masks disrupting protests and trying to instigate cops to do crowd control on peaceful people.

As for your other question, none of those things have been an issue at protests thus far, masks have.

You really are naive. What are you, 17 perhaps 17 1/2? You'll figure it out one day. Hell, maybe it'll be the day you vote to ban sunglasses in public for fear of them facilitating a crime.

 

[Lanx]

Maybe if police, campus or otherwise woulda done their job and start laying down some arrests, they woulda been like

"DA FUQ!!!, you 28, you don't goto school here!!!"

 

[InternetHero]

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. (1)



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



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). (2)



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)



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. (4)



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). (5)



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. (6)

1. The facts do not some to support that as all the major philosophers and the branches it was inspired of are of the left. Sorry, based on all the evidence available and the clear chronology of the post modernist philosophers (who are all left) that the author was engaging in argument by selective observation.

2. Actually, that's bald false equivalence to say that "crime has fallen therefore the cultural situation is alleviated," no not at all, and let's play that game out.

Me: There are more black criminals in prisons therefore higher prison populations and a tough on crime stance has obviously driven down crime and improved the black community.

That would be a fallacy of incomplete evidence, although, I could say with what has happened in Maryland and Chicago, there is circumstantial evidence to support that kind of claim.

Therefore if you want to take on that argument directly: Has there been a significant reduction in % of crime committed by the black community? Are those numbers available? What were the improvements in culture and how were they influenced?

3. My hypocritical right? Hmm, fascinating.

All right then, whites represent the dominant culture, why would they not be the most successful, or Asians, or many Hispanics who adapt well to the hegemony of the traditional "white" culture? That's what I am saying. Trying to fragment a whole society into sects of societies leads to volatility, not E Pluribus Unum.

4. No the exact opposite as A. Cognitive bias has a lot of awful obstacles to being a useful scientific tool and B. the-bias-is-not-due-to-skin-color, it is due to culture.

The reason Martin Luther King could make it mainstream and Malcolm X was circling a drain of malcontents is for that reason.

If you adjust to the dominant culture, you can be very successful in the country or region of your choice.

"Bias" such that it exists is a judgment of culture now a day, not of skin color, it is not 68', or even 78', or 88'.

5. I think you're trying to be on the level with that explanation, but it is the dominant thought in academia, not the fringe. That dominance publishes the papers, which influences the thinkers, who make policy for the political class.

6. The "alt right" is like a few thousand guys angry behind their keyboards sick of PC garbage trolling the life out of everyone. When they have "conferences" a few dozen guys in bow ties and suspenders show up talking about cartoon frogs.

That Trump is a Nationalist and wants to protect tradition is where we see the post modern element of the right, a return to a triumph of the champion promising to punish his equivalent of clingers, Deplorables, and those who would "put ya'll back in chains!" from phony Hope and Change to phony "Winning."

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It's a good thing we have laws against destroying property and assaulting people. Tell me again how the ski-masks themselves inflicted injury or caused damage.

I'll ask you the same: ban vehicle sunscreens? Sunglasses too? Hell we may as well throw umbrellas in too because they can conceal your face AND be used as a weapon. HORY SHET

The focus is on wearing masks at protests and people wearing masks have consistently been causing problems at protests. I think it is quite reasonable to demand a ban on masks during protests given the amount of problems people in masks cause.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

You really are naive. What are you, 17 perhaps 17 1/2? You'll figure it out one day. Hell, maybe it'll be the day you vote to ban sunglasses in public for fear of them facilitating a crime.

Negative, in my 30s. Given that you're go-to argument is to insult other posters, I think you may be on the younger side. Like I said, I've participated in numerous protests over the years, never been fired or discriminated against. If all you are doing is holding a sign and peacefully representing your cause, you will not be in any trouble.

And as I said, you're better off wearing a suit and a tie than a ski mask. News stations will actually stop to talk to you, and get your opinion. That's an opportunity for you to shed some light on your cause and why it is important.

Sure you can. Your employer can fire you if he thinks you damage his brand.

If you're representing your employer openly (wearing company brand), and engaging in illegal behavior, I can see that. If you are just protesting peacefully on your own time and not engaging in any illegal activity, they can't do anything.

 

[RhinoRush]

The staff and students at Berkeley want this so let them burn the whole thing down.

 

[HereticBD]

Did you have a video you forgot to add?

You didn't see this?

 

[dontsnitch]

If you're representing your employer openly (wearing company brand), and engaging in illegal behavior, I can see that. If you are just protesting peacefully on your own time and not engaging in any illegal activity, they can't do anything.

There have been plenty of instances of people saying stupid things on social media and getting fired for it. As we all know, somewhat ironically, free speech doesn't mean that you're free from the consequences.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

There have been plenty of instances of people saying stupid things on social media and getting fired for it. As we all know, somewhat ironically, free speech doesn't mean that you're free from the consequences.

Social media can be tricky. People forget that they have their employer listed under personal details, and go on to make statements that reflect badly on their employer by association.