Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]It was Milo Yannopoulous (?spelling) that was going to speak and he is Gay aint he?
So yeah.... [/B]
I'll look this up. This is probably another one of those "you have to think this way" self-destructive Social Justice Warrior hypocrisy that has been cropping up in the last 20 or so years.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I just posted about this to my grandmother and Uncle, who are both very strongly anti-Trump, on Facebook (slow day at work).They think that Trump speaking out against the paid thugs makes Trump stupid and trying to justify that the angry protesters/rioters are not legit.
But they are mistaken. There are really people out there who are professional protesters who may be trying to undermine the peaceful protests. And Snopes, in their idiocy and clear bias, is trying to pretend like this is not happening.
Well...it is hurting the left leaning peaceful protesters. Trump has spoken out against them. So since Trump is against them, now some idiot leftists are trying to pretend like Trump is going crazy. Why? Because they believe Trump is trying to state that people are not really this angry at him and what he represents. They are so quick to be anti-Trump that they don't realize that they are harming their cause. Some of these liberal retards need to take a step back and stop being so knee-jerk quick to be anti-Trump on EVERYTHING Trump says.
One of my very liberal and anti-Trump friends posted an image to Facebook that said something like, "Trump could cure cancer and they would complain about Trump putting doctor's out of work." Disruptive innovation? Even liberals are getting tired of the illogical anti-Trump bullshit.
Don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but:
Who benefits most from supposed liberals freaking out at largely irrelevant or trivial Trump antics, when there's bigger and actually important issues to focus on? Trump and Co., that's who.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait....what?This happened?
Do you have a link?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'll look this up. This is probably another one of those "you have to think this way" self-destructive Social Justice Warrior hypocrisy that has been cropping up in the last 20 or so years.
Some further insights on the riot:
^ rioters violently assault people, destroy property and curtail free speech
Originally posted by Robtard
Don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but:Who benefits most from supposed liberals freaking out at largely irrelevant or trivial Trump antics, when there's bigger and actually important issues to focus on? Trump and Co., that's who.
Both sides and both causes are benefiting and being detrimented from these efforts, in my opinion.
And I think bad actors from both sides are involved in these things. There is certainly evidence that the left is part of making this happen. But there is no way that the right is not involved in at least some of this.
Originally posted by Stigma
Here:👆
Very enlightening.
Pretty sad. Someone should take him up on his challenge to the left to actually debate him instead of insulting him by calling him a gay homophobe.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Very enlightening.Pretty sad. Someone should take him up on his challenge to the left to actually debate him instead of insulting him by calling him a gay homophobe.
Actually one of Milo's arguments during his talks is that modern Left has no real arguments to resort to. He is proven right tbh.
If you blame all left people for the actions of a few extremists, then you're being stupid and reactionary.
If you blame all right people for the actions of a few extremists, then you're being stupid and reactionary.
People need to stop using left and right as ways of dividing each other by painting people as all one huge freedom-crushing entity. Left ideologies are not inherently bad, neither right. Stop using useful happenings as a way of confirming that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Originally posted by Scribble
If you blame all left people for the actions of a few extremists, then you're being stupid and reactionary.If you blame all right people for the actions of a few extremists, then you're being stupid and reactionary.
People need to stop using left and right as ways of dividing each other by painting people as all one huge freedom-crushing entity. Left ideologies are not inherently bad, neither right. Stop using useful happenings as a way of confirming that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
"By the fruits they bear you shall know them" to paraphrase Jesus.
Modern Leftism has a lot of problems, one of them is an allergy for different points of view.
The event at Berkeley is not unique, mind you, though indeed a very violent one. SJWs and Far Left resort to that behavior and similar actions often.
Originally posted by Scribble
If you blame all left people for the actions of a few extremists, then you're being stupid and reactionary.If you blame all right people for the actions of a few extremists, then you're being stupid and reactionary.
People need to stop using left and right as ways of dividing each other by painting people as all one huge freedom-crushing entity. Left ideologies are not inherently bad, neither right. Stop using useful happenings as a way of confirming that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
This is indeed the problem on both sides. Intellectual honestly is in short supply, likely due to how vile this last election cycle was.
As we see here, a group of self-described anarchist who go out to stir trouble and vandalize are being shipped with "The Left". Two of my conservative FB friends did the same, they posted a picture of the riot and added "too bad the Loving Left has become this" or similar, as a means to demonize.
Originally posted by StigmaI don't like the term 'centrist', because that is buying into the binary opposite of 'left' and 'right', and only furthers tribal mentalities.
I am sympathetic to your approach, however I feel you missed the point. Morover, you seem like a Centrist, am I right?"By the fruits they bear you shall know them" to paraphrase Jesus.
Modern Leftism has a lot of problems, one of them is an allergy for different points of view.
The event at Berkeley is not unique, mind you, though indeed a very violent one. SJWs and Far Left resort to that behavior and similar actions often.
Although I agree that the current accepted form of 'leftism' has plenty of issues, its inherent beliefs have not changed, but have, sadly, been pushed to the wayside in many ways. The general idea of leftism should be born out of freedom and empathy, so I see no shame in aligning myself closely with the core ideas of 'leftism' if that is what it represents in a general sense. It's just that I can't get behind the whole "You're either with us or against us" stuff that goes on in modern politics.
There are plenty of left-identifying people who want to shut down debate and argument, but, unfortunately for them, that isn't a very 'left' ideal.
With this Berkeley situation, the argument that the protest itself is a threat to free speech is a fallacy, because that implies that the protestors are not allowed their own modicum of free speech; the freedom to protest. They are not saying that Milo should stop speaking indefinitely, just that they do not want him at their university. It's their right to do that, regardless of whether you agree or disagree. To condemn those protestors because of a number of hard-line anarchists is essentially allowing yourself to blind yourself to the complexity of any given political situation – something that many on the left are also guilty of.
Originally posted by RobtardPeople are definitely bitter after the last election, but now they seem happy to choose a side whereas before they genuinely wanted change. The whole 'Us vs Them' has taken over again, and is going to solve nothing. Pretty depressing, really.
This is indeed the problem on both sides. Intellectual honestly is in short supply, likely due to how vile this last election cycle was.As we see here, a group of self-described anarchist who go out to stir trouble and vandalize are being shipped with "The Left". Two of my conservative FB friends did the same, they posted a picture of the riot and added "too bad the Loving Left has become this" or similar, as a means to demonize.
Who was pushing an Us Vs Them approach prior to the election and who is benefitting now that it's in full effect? Exactly.
Concerning the Berkeley protest: Should be noted that Berkeley students (the peaceful protestors) showed up before dawn to clean up the plaza and set it back to order as best they could.
Originally posted by Scribble
With this Berkeley situation, the argument that the protest itself is a threat to free speech is a fallacy, because that implies that the protestors are not allowed their own modicum of free speech; the freedom to protest. They are not saying that Milo should stop speaking indefinitely, just that they do not want him at their university. It's their right to do that, regardless of whether you agree or disagree. To condemn those protestors because of a number of hard-line anarchists is essentially allowing yourself to blind yourself to the complexity of any given political situation – something that many on the left are also guilty of.
What?
No. What kind of an idea, that silencing people you don't want to hear and rioting, is "free speech"?
No, it is not hypocritical to decry criminal activities such as trespassing and destruction of property. That is not "free speech." Free speech, as was intended and explicitly defined by the First Amendment, is literally "peaceable."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
He is NOT seeking to silence free speech by decrying destructive rioting whose intentions are to silence. 😬
It very explicitly is excluded from Free Speech.
Silencing someone from speaking is also not "free speech." That's oppression and silencing. Shouldn't that be obvious?
Free Speech would be welcoming or simply ignoring people whose words you do not like. "Tolerance." You know, that word the left likes to throw around but many don't follow?
Originally posted by Robtard
Concerning the Berkeley protest: Should be noted that Berkeley students (the peaceful protestors) showed up before dawn to clean up the plaza and set it back to order as best they could.
These are the ones who probably supported Free Speech and would have let that dude do his talk. These represent the majority, imo.
Originally posted by dadudemon
These are the ones who probably supported Free Speech and would have let that dude do his talk. These represent the majority, imo.
Yes and no, I would imagine. I can see some people who did not want Milo to spew his garbage, but were doing it in a peaceful manner.
People have the right in voicing their opinion in not wanting someone to appear somewhere. I personally found it silly concerning Milo, but I'm not them.
eg I'd have a problem with a member of N.A.M.B.L.A. speaking at my children's schools and I have the right to voice my opinion against that happening, as long as I do it peacefully.
Originally posted by dadudemonI think you might have slightly misunderstood, so I'll put it pretty simply:
What?No. What kind of an idea, that silencing people you don't want to hear and rioting, is "free speech"?
No, it is not hypocritical to decry criminal activities such as trespassing and destruction of property. That is not "free speech." Free speech, as was intended and explicitly defined by the First Amendment, is literally "peaceable."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
He is NOT seeking to silence free speech by decrying destructive rioting whose intentions are to silence. 😬
It very explicitly is excluded from Free Speech.
Silencing someone from speaking is also not "free speech." That's oppression and silencing. Shouldn't that be obvious?
Free Speech would be welcoming or simply ignoring people whose words you do not like. "Tolerance." You know, that word the left likes to throw around but many don't follow?
– The rioting is unrepresentative of the protest. If you read my earlier post, instead of coming in halfway through, that might have been slightly more obvious. (I don't mean this in a trolling or sardonic manner, honestly.)
– The protest was about not wanting somebody who spreads abusive speech at their campus. Milo has, in the past, abused members of his audience without provocation, so them not wanting this person at their institution is something that I, personally, see as something they have a right to speak out against (freedom of speech).
(Milo sources:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/12/15/milo-uwm-trans-locker-room/ )
Originally posted by RobtardExactly. Saying that everything is "free speech" except the things that you don't see as free speech is exactly the same thing as the thing that person is arguing against. It's a cyclical fallacy, an ouroboros of self-confusion.
Yes and no, I would imagine. I can see some people who did not want Milo to spew his garbage, but were doing it in a peaceful manner.People have the right in voicing their opinion in not wanting someone to appear somewhere. I personally found it silly concerning Milo, but I'm not them.
eg I'd have a problem with a member of N.A.M.B.L.A. speaking at my children's schools and I have the right to voice my opinion against that happening, as long as I do it peacefully.
Originally posted by Scribble
I think you might have slightly misunderstood, so I'll put it pretty simply:– The rioting is unrepresentative of the protest. If you read my earlier post, instead of coming in halfway through, that might have been slightly more obvious. (I don't mean this in a trolling or sardonic manner, honestly.)
– The protest was about not wanting somebody who spreads abusive speech at their campus. Milo has, in the past, abused members of his audience without provocation, so them not wanting this person at their institution is something that I, personally, see as something they have a right to speak out against (freedom of speech).
(Milo sources:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/12/15/milo-uwm-trans-locker-room/ )
So why not just not go to his speech?