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

I don't believe anyone encouraged rioting or mayhem, at least not any of the professors on campus, as is being claimed.


your joking right? this same shit happens almost every time a conservative speaker comes to an University.

Milo got the same response here in UW...

Ben Shapiro and every college he goes to. They actually had to "ban him" for "safety concerns at DePaul.

College like you said, should be a place where healthy discussion and debate are fostered...and yes...a place where unpopular opinions are expressed, not shouted down or shut down completely.
 
Why weren't the police called and the vandals and rioters engaged? Do you think the students were tolerant of it?



Oh look, All those Antifa and "students" all cheering along together.

I mean lets get one thing straight. The one kid talking knows this shit will look bad on national TV, and he can say students didn't condone it. But even while he's talking everyone of them are chanting away "shut this down" together marching side by side Antifa and all.

It's almost becoming like the moderate Muslim vs radical Muslim analogy.

The radical protestors want to beat your ass.
The "moderate" protestors want the radical protestors to beat your ass.
 
your joking right? this same shit happens almost every time a conservative speaker comes to an University.

Milo got the same response here in UW...

Ben Shapiro and every college he goes to. They actually had to "ban him" for "safety concerns at DePaul.

College like you said, should be a place where healthy discussion and debate are fostered...and yes...a place where unpopular opinions are expressed, not shouted down or shut down completely.

This does happen, sure. I'm not disputing that. Bad things happen. Stupid people do stupid things.

I'm disputing the idea that it was somehow encouraged by the University itself, like you seem to be implying. This sort of thing is a huge liability for them. They don't want this to go on.

Let Milo start paying for his own security if he wants to keep doing this.
 
Cops in San Francisco are worse. they do absolutely nothing. allow fights. blatant drug selling/use. I went to a festival a while back and people were selling LSD, ecstasy, and mushrooms in booths yelling out. While police just stood there, with their arms folded laughing. Also, a man Was hit in the head with a bottle and no action was taken. Naked gay guys essentially having sex in public, isn't a rare sight either in the city,.
Didn't you know everyone in San Francisco is unique. The art culture, the indecent film makers and very snobby coffee enthusiasts. In reality its a hotbed for drugs, it seems like the weed culture is shifting towards heroine and cocaine. I smoke pot with my friends but
Shit! are you White or Asian on top of that? If so, FUCK YOU! Check your privilege....
I'm half Filipino, but still gots to keep the other half in check. Naa'm saying.
 
This does happen, sure. I'm not disputing that. Bad things happen. Stupid people do stupid things.

I'm disputing the idea that it was somehow encouraged by the University itself, like you seem to be implying. This sort of thing is a huge liability for them. They don't want this to go on.

Let Milo start paying for his own security if he wants to keep doing this.


I'm not saying the University President organized this protest him/herself ...what I am saying is that they don't take better preventative measures to control/deter such chaotic behavior.

THe university should also provide security for their visitors...even the unpopular ones. (imo)
 
Awe damn.... You actually posted a source. And it seems fairly informed with the direction they came from, etc... Since no arrests were made, and they say NOTHING about them not being students, or their identity AT ALL, I will stand on my position; How does anyone know who the "masked agitators" are?

Please note that the direction they came from was off campus. I think that can shed some light on their origin.
 
I'm not saying the University President organized this protest him/herself ...what I am saying is that they don't take better preventative measures to control/deter such chaotic behavior.

THe university should also provide security for their visitors...even the unpopular ones. (imo)

By all accounts the agitators came from off campus and before they arrived everything was very orderly and peaceful.

This is a failure of local law enforcement, not Berkeley.
 
So what youre saying is there is no way for us to know except for what you think may be the case.
 
Attack shown in interview:



Terrible, said her and her husband wore kevlar vests and her husband's ribs were broken from the beatings they took.

Pepper Sprayed:

 
Last edited:
So what youre saying is there is no way for us to know except for what you think may be the case.
just offering a point of view from someone who was at the "protests." I'm just saying it should be taken into consideration
 
Please note that the direction they came from was off campus. I think that can shed some light on their origin.
The students can't leave campus? It has nothing to do with it and you know it.

Look, I'm not saying that it was the students, in fact, I stated earlier that it is likely paid agitators. But we really don't know do we? I'm just trying to goad you in to working from a factual basis and actually be rational, instead of blindly championing the left side of the discussion.
 
I'm working at Cal Monday and Tuesday for a post-doc in the chemistry department. I've done a ton of work there over the last 9 years in my current position, once had work cancelled because of the walk-out a few years back (over tuition? I don't remember), but I still can't tell if the convo during work will turn political.

A lot of the people there doing high level research in their field have a microscope (read: blinders) on in regard to politics/civics, which is understandable. I went through a similar experience as a music major in college. But with everything making the headlines lately and the fray becoming the masses, I'm afraid my time there might turn to those topics.

How I wish I could return to the days when I didn't yet give a fuck about keeping up with politics/leadership yet.
 
That's fucked up...but lets be honest, who in the hell will bring a Trump hat to a place where radical idiots will show up?


Come on, we all knew that these dumbasses were gonna show up. It's wrong that she got her ass beat but it's common sense.



That's like me going with a hilary hat to Somewhere in Texas, if hilary had won the presidency and the right wing were crying about it.


inb4 people deny that the right isn't full of idiots either.
 
You're just arguing a different and irrelevant point. Postmodernism is very strongly contrary to liberal thought, and it doesn't actually fit well with Marxist thought, though Marxists appropriated it from the right when they wanted to make cultural critiques of capitalism. That's it. Everything else you've tried to read into it or argue with is beside the point. (1)



This, I'm afraid, is a simple (and inexplicable) difference of opinion if you think that crime rate by demographic group is a more-important issue that crime rate. And I did not list a cause/effect of why crime is going down (seems to me that the best evidence is that rise and fall of environmental toxins explain the rise and fall of crime, as well as a lot of particulars of it--like why the rise and fall was more pronounced in urban areas--better than any other explanation, though it's probably more like half the story). (2)



The effect of economic disparity on crime is not a topic that we've discussed at all. I discussed the effect of intergenerational wealth transfers on current wealth levels. (3)



I was assuming that we were both aware, and you didn't ask for a source. (4)

https://www.nap.edu/read/9719/chapter/11#226
http://www.demos.org/blog/9/25/14/whites-have-more-wealth-blacks-and-hispanics-similar-incomes



This is a bunch of gibberish. What I was responding to was this:

""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 ..." In fact, these are questions that are actually studied in a lot of depth. Since your assertion is that the issue isn't studied (that people who present the simple fact are "shouted down" with arguments), it is sufficient for me to point out that a lot of research is done on the issue to refute it. And you are clearly unaware of any of it, given your comments. (5)



You're arguing against a point I never made. (6)



I think it is more fair to say that we've scraped the bottom of your knowledge on the topic and are resorting to a typical attack exit as a means of "saving face." (7)

1. Your thoughts seem to be a bit convoluted at best on your, own, interpretation. I will simply remind you are providing an argument by selective observation based on a political book you liked, stunningly, your own logic almost comes to the correct and stated conclusion once it finishes the "Marxists stole it from rightist" circle and "it's only in academia" pleas.

2. Difference of opinion, sure, however that is not what I was saying.

3. The two would be unconditionally connected if you pursue that argument.

4. I had a look, and you are still wandering the forest looking at trees. That blacks as a cultural group might not quite meet the income level does not A. explain the multiple factor increase of the violent crime for such a small variable

5. I disagree, but what we would consider to be relevant research would also differ. See "1" in previous posts for why. Until you acknowledge my posts or learn about cultural theory we are at a loss, as economics is a poor substitute.

6/7. Interesting, I do not believe my lengthy discussion with Fawtly, or anyone else, broke down into someone claiming I did not have the knowledge while... after you changed and flipped the argument all around, you ignored all aspects of my simplified (for your sake) multiple attempts to show how cultural dimensions theory is having an impact on the problem.

We can agree, although for different reasons, that in debate terms things have gotten "messy."

The last word will be yours. I no longer believe this is a candid or productive discussion.

Until next time Mr. Jack V Savage.
 
I'm the type of guy that would have jumped in Germany during WW2 and fought Nazis. Also if my unit captured any Nazi or German soldiers I would have offered them a cigarette and treated them humanely. That being said I don't give a fuck if you're my enemy or not I'll treat you like a human being, true liberals wouldn't act like a pack wild savages.
 
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.
It sets a dangerous and strange precedent that might let you get away with standing on Telegraph or College or University or Oxford or Shattuck or wherever downtown, targeting a police officer with a bottle rocket at high noon, and firing, because you have video evidence of them not enforcing the restriction of that action.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top