- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 61,838
- Reaction score
- 42,450
You haven't shown me that they've even said it.
http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/01...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
You haven't shown me that they've even said it.
I don't believe anyone encouraged rioting or mayhem, at least not any of the professors on campus, as is being claimed.
Why weren't the police called and the vandals and rioters engaged? Do you think the students were tolerant of it?
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.
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 butCops 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,.
I'm half Filipino, but still gots to keep the other half in check. Naa'm saying.Shit! are you White or Asian on top of that? If so, FUCK YOU! Check your privilege....
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?
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.
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?
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)
just offering a point of view from someone who was at the "protests." I'm just saying it should be taken into considerationSo what youre saying is there is no way for us to know except for what you think may be the case.
The students can't leave campus? It has nothing to do with it and you know it.Please note that the direction they came from was off campus. I think that can shed some light on their origin.
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)
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.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.