It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Happening Now: Anarchists, Antifa Protesters Shutdown Milo at UC Berkeley

page: 11
40
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Nobody is asking you to have sympathy for anyone else, just that all be allowed to speak, whether you or I agree with them or not. This is the issue, not whether we are sympathetic. If he can be silenced so can the people to which we are sympathetic. We're talking about a civil society here. Civilized people don't set fires and bust out windows because someone said something with which they disagree.




posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt



These people exhibiting the bad behavior are as far from liberals as one can get.
.....
It was the duty of the University and City police to keep the peace, to keep people from being beaten senseless in the streets. If they didn't do their duty, it is on their head. That is not to say that the peaceful protestors didn't have an obligation to leave immediately when the troublemakers showed up and started their game of vandalism and beating people with sticks.


Well said. Going forward, something like this should be handled differently. I've got a feeling these anarchists (and Milo lol) will not be going away. Here is an interesting read.

It is interesting you have mentioned about govt infiltrators with meetings/demonstrations. In matters involving protesting corporations (pollution, etc.), there can be people hired by the corporation to infiltrate meetings and peaceful protests.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The school didn't tell Milo he couldn't speak. The school had to cancel after the anarchists showed up and started a riot on campus. The riot ended up happening off the campus, too, on city streets. It turned into a dangerous situation for all.

lol The school's federal funding includes Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
edit on 3-2-2017 by desert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: desert
The anarchists in black who intentionally destroy property (Bannon BTW fancies himself an anarchist of govt) need to be held accountable. What I find disturbing for America was Trump's impulsive tweet right after, "If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" This is so Nixonian, wanting to use govt power to take away from citizens not involved. No investigation, just threat of action. An American Reichstag would be easy with a Trump.


Berkeley has Republican/conservative students.

There have been Republican/conservative speakers at Berkeley with no issues.

Milo has an agenda. He is an antagonist. He's like the guy who yells fire in a crowded theater just to get a reaction.

Is it really free speech? Or is his intent to push buttons and cause a backlash?

I have ZERO sympathy for Milo.




People in the past that were intentionally provocative off of the top of my head.

Lenny Bruce, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, The Clash, Andy Warhol, Malcolm X, Rage Against the Machine, Bill Maher, Bill Hicks, Joe Rogan, Patrice Oneal, Rosanne Barr, Rosie O'donnell, Doug Stanhope, Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chapelle, Salvador Dali, Micheal Eric Dyson, Zizek, John Stweart, Stephen Colbert, Lena Duhnam, Eddie Izzard, Jim morrison, Elton John, David Bowie, Rupaul, System of a down, Nas, Tupac, Notrious BIG, Eminem, Frank Zappa .

How about historical provocateurs such as Socrates, Diogenes, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Frederick Douglas.

All of these people and many, many more were antagonist that poked the bear. So all of them should have been censored, and had riots against them, right?

Or its it just provocateurs that you disagree with that deserve to be silenced.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: desert




It is interesting you have mentioned about govt infiltrators with meetings/demonstrations. In matters involving protesting corporations (pollution, etc.), there can be people hired by the corporation to infiltrate meetings and peaceful protests.
Been there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
You left out Don Rickles.

I really don't see any comparison between Milo and that list.

Milo, a gay man, specifically targets women and sensitive women's issues.

Why?

Let me know when he "man's up".



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Grambler
You left out Don Rickles.

I really don't see any comparison between Milo and that list.

Milo, a gay man, specifically targets women and sensitive women's issues.

Why?

Let me know when he "man's up".




Rickles is great!

But you are coming off as quite hypocritical. I have hear Rickles make rape jokes at womens expense. But its cool for him for you, because you don't mind his politics.

You have shown you have no evidence of Milo ever threatening violence or censorshi[ toward people. Now you have shown that its not his jokes that bother you.

Its become clear; you objection to Milo is that he brings up facts against the cult of modern feminism. You can't leave him speak, because his facts point out the hatred and lies of this cult.

He uses humor sure, and is a troll, but its the facts he has, like how the wage gap is a myth, how women severely outpace men in secondary education, how the rape culture is a myth, how much violence the Feminists movement uses against men; this is why you hate Milo.

You sound like a white racist in the 70's saying they can't leave their children see Richard Pryor, or they might realize racism is nonsense. Not a good look for you.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Grambler
You left out Don Rickles.

I really don't see any comparison between Milo and that list.

Milo, a gay man, specifically targets women and sensitive women's issues.

Why?

Let me know when he "man's up".




Rickles is great!

But you are coming off as quite hypocritical. I have hear Rickles make rape jokes at womens expense. But its cool for him for you, because you don't mind his politics.

You have shown you have no evidence of Milo ever threatening violence or censorshi[ toward people. Now you have shown that its not his jokes that bother you.

Its become clear; you objection to Milo is that he brings up facts against the cult of modern feminism. You can't leave him speak, because his facts point out the hatred and lies of this cult.

He uses humor sure, and is a troll, but its the facts he has, like how the wage gap is a myth, how women severely outpace men in secondary education, how the rape culture is a myth, how much violence the Feminists movement uses against men; this is why you hate Milo.

You sound like a white racist in the 70's saying they can't leave their children see Richard Pryor, or they might realize racism is nonsense. Not a good look for you.





So, you're comparing satirist comedians to what Milo does?

Wherever Milo is scheduled to speak violent protests occur.

But, Hey! Not Milo's fault. He never promotes violence.

But, of course we can blame Berkeley and all the liberal protesters --- because liberals are out of control. Even though we know for a fact it was "black bloc".

edit on 4-2-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Grambler
You left out Don Rickles.

I really don't see any comparison between Milo and that list.

Milo, a gay man, specifically targets women and sensitive women's issues.

Why?

Let me know when he "man's up".




Rickles is great!

But you are coming off as quite hypocritical. I have hear Rickles make rape jokes at womens expense. But its cool for him for you, because you don't mind his politics.

You have shown you have no evidence of Milo ever threatening violence or censorshi[ toward people. Now you have shown that its not his jokes that bother you.

Its become clear; you objection to Milo is that he brings up facts against the cult of modern feminism. You can't leave him speak, because his facts point out the hatred and lies of this cult.

He uses humor sure, and is a troll, but its the facts he has, like how the wage gap is a myth, how women severely outpace men in secondary education, how the rape culture is a myth, how much violence the Feminists movement uses against men; this is why you hate Milo.

You sound like a white racist in the 70's saying they can't leave their children see Richard Pryor, or they might realize racism is nonsense. Not a good look for you.





So, you're comparing saterist comedians to what Milo does?


Yes. Haven't you heard everyone call Milo a troll, as in someone who intentionally uses things like humor and satire to prove a point?

Can't you see that is exactly what Rickles did?

Or lets take Lenny Bruce, the comedian that was arrested again and again for obscenity. Do you think that he really was trying to have sex with nuns and the queen, or was he saying these things to outrage people and prove a point? The same with Rickles. Do you think he was actually laughing at the thought of raping people, or outraging people to make a point?

Somehow you are ok with this though.

So when Milo says women should stay off the internet if they don't want to be insulted, do you think he is literally suggesting women not be allowed on the internet, or making a point?

Why don't you tell me the most offensive thing Milo has said, and we will compare it to Don Rickles?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

To respond to the rest of your edit.
So what, violence followed Malcom X around. Violence followed Lenny Bruce around.

Much like with them, the violence that follows Milo around isn't from him advocating it, or from his supporters, its from those who dislike him.

Violence or the threat of it has followed other conservative speakers too, like Gavin Mccinnes, Ben Shapiro, Laura Southern, Condeleeza Rice, Christina Hoff Sommers, Karen Straughn, Warren Farrell, and many others, and led to their censorship.

Is it your contention that all of those speakers are also guilty of something? Or could it be the more obvious answer, that leftist people on campuses will use threats of violence to censor conservative speakers.

And people keep going on about how it was antifa or blac bloc that were the only bad people protesting.

Did you not see those people shouting on bullhorns for the rest of the "protestors" to block the street over and over again so they could smash buildings. Did you not see those protestors all doing that at the request of the masked protestors, and then cheering wildly?

Did you not see almost all of the protestors responding to the cops demand to leave because people were being beaten and property was being destroyed by chanting f the police and othe ranti cop cheers? Did you see that it appears so far that at least one of the Blac Bloc rioters was a Berkely employee?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I'm over it.

Said what I had to say.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Grambler

I'm over it.

Said what I had to say.



Fair enough, no hard feelings.

I would end by saying this, why don't we just agree not to use violence to censor any speech that is non violent, no matter how disgusting we find it.

For example, I find the racial huckstering of Al Sharpton to be incredibly hirtful to the country and absolutely disgusting. But if he is speaking anywhere in my town, I won't threaten violence to stop him.

In fact, I would defend him from anyone doing so, because this is America, and we have Freedom of Speech.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:15 AM
link   

edit on 4-2-2017 by khnum because: broadsided by phage and sunk



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: khnum




Global top 150 Universities by employability ...no Berkeley

Actually, it's #19.
www.timeshighereducation.com...

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: khnum



edit on 4-2-2017 by khnum because: need glasses



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: khnum

Berkeley is #13. Now what?
www.timeshighereducation.com...

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Posts adjusted due to incorrectness must need glasses



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: khnum

No.
Glasses won't correct for confirmation bias.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: khnum

No.
Glasses won't correct for confirmation bias.


Well you might be surprised Im not a Trump right or wrong supporter his foreign policy is starting to get a bit scary with the too much too quick routine I just hope we dont start blaming all ills on a minority group if you get my drift



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: khnum

Berzerkly has been that for a long time.
It's still a damn good school.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join