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.

 

How Long Can We Keep This Up

page: 1
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Free speech. Thoughts and ideas. The very foundation that civilization is built. Without words we will use swords and return to a state of barbaric savagery that we fought so hard to rise above.

Last night I watched yet again free speech get stomped out and shut down with nary an argument but by force. A mob mentality that threatened not only the safety of the speaker but of any onlooker or cameraman.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How long can this go on?


Perhaps a little melodramatic but it illustrates the point.





posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Is that not somewhat of an odd question?

Tell me, what sort of weakness would have to be abroad amongst the American population, for things which seemed wrong to them on one day, appear to be less wrong on another day of the week? How unfounded would ones political beliefs be, if they simply ceased to be important after a time of being expressed in great voice?

The fact is that the answer to your question is "As long as people feel a need to protest".

That being said, the methodology applied by the protestors (actually in this case, an angry mob, which is somewhat different) in this instance is entirely inappropriate. It was a speaking event by a famous for nothing, not a White Supremacist rally. Antifa do not need to be rocking up to Milo's speaking engagements, because Milo is not known for violence. Antifa (a group whose existence I thoroughly endorse by the way) are best deployed into scenarios where actual militant White Supremacists, fascists, racists or other partially organised and historically violent groups from the right, might attempt to make a statement with violence, as a countermeasure.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   
As long as there's a will...

So much try to fly under the umbrella of "free speech ", and so much try to hide behind the guise of "protesting "



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   
You have the right to free speach only when it doesnt upset the liberals .



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




Is that not somewhat of an odd question?

Tell me, what sort of weakness would have to be abroad amongst the American population, for things which seemed wrong to them on one day, appear to be less wrong on another day of the week? How unfounded would ones political beliefs be, if they simply ceased to be important after a time of being expressed in great voice?


I don't find it odd, perhaps ignorant on my part (thus this posting). If a belief is held and new information added and that belief is changed, does that constitute as weakness? That obviously is not the case here but it illustrates the fallacy of weakness to changing of a mind. The protesters/rioters weren't there for a debate, they were there to shut the event down.

Best defense is a good offense stance? Well, that doesn't entirely work under the law. Destruction of property, assault etc all happened much within the view of the police.

I get the gist of what your implying Brit but I'm failing to see how that applies in this scenario and others like it that have happened in the past.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   
There will be a breaking point. What will it take to end these protests?



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

What I am saying is this:

If, on a given day, someone realises that something is, in their view, going horribly wrong and none of what they are hearing gives them any hope that what has gone wrong will be rectified, then until they do feel that what has gone wrong will be rectified, what reason would they have to change their behaviour?

If, for example, the actions of a government or its supporters are so concerning to a person that they feel they have to protest, and nothing changes with that governance, nothing changes with the rhetoric from the support base, if no hope can be offered that will remove those concerns, then why would a person become suddenly prepared to accept a situation they feel is intolerable? The situation as it stands is NOT one in which those who are protesting can be accurately described as having no reason to do so. The things which troubled them about the far right take over of America still trouble them. They still feel that there is a grievance which has not been addressed, a problem which has not been taken care of, so why, given that they have not been given ANY reason to believe otherwise thus far, would they cease to believe that protest is their only recourse?

If it was worth turning up for the first protest, then given that there has been no change in direction, given that there is no change in pace, given that there has been no acceptance or understanding, or even proper acknowledgement given to the protestors, given that all their concerns are being entirely ignored by both the grass roots and the government itself, given that people are STILL concentrating more on the existence of the protests, rather than the very understandable concerns of the protestors, why would they stop?


edit on 2-2-2017 by TrueBrit because: grammatical error removed.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:34 AM
link   
I largely agree with TrueBrit on this. I completely support Milo's right to give speeches as much as I think he's just trolling people for a reaction, and I support the right of people to go to protest and allow their voices to be heard. Obviously I, and I think most people on this side of the debate would agree that violence, damage of any kind is stupid and only hurts the message. I think there are two points to be made though. The first being that, as was both the cases tonight, and in Washington, a large portion or all of the damage was caused by this same group claiming to be antifa, wearing all black, having anarchist paraphenialia, etc. I cant say what that group is from, but its obvious from everytime I've seen them that they are not with the main group of protestors usually..they always seem to be trying to provoke the usually younger crowd to sometimes join in..and they're usually met with people just standing around them filming. The college students I have seen damage seem to be young/stupid. Im barely over college age so I could probably fall into that category too but people that are young and get emotional and do something stupid. I mean it happens even with sporting events and victory celebrations in large crowds..stupid things start tend to start happening.

I kind of believe the antifa groups are being paid by someone, who..I dont know, but if anyone is being paid to protest anywhere it appears to be those people. They obviously go in with an agenda of distruction.

Then that violence will be shown on the news, and will be used to say that the entire crowd was a radical violent mob bent on causing damage. Thats how it usually goes. I honestly believe the other side in a lot of cases just does not want to see any protesting if it is against Trump. When I watched the women's march, that was I believe a good showing of a peaceful protest..agree or disagree with its message as you like, I certainly didnt agree with everything they wanted, but it was a large and I believe 100% peaceful display..and yet I looked at live streams and live comment sections, and 90% of the comments on some stations were "Send in the dogs" or "Shoot a few of them and they'll stop" or just about every name or derogatory term in the book to call them all morons.

Something absolutely needs to be done about any intentional unprovoked damage done at protests, but I, as well as many others I know (who are far from people that just eat up everything MSM says) are becoming increasingly concerned about things that Donald is doing, and are not expecting things to ease up, and from my perspective there is a lot that people can justifiably be protesting in some form or fashion.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Why didn't Milo go ahead and talk?

What you're seeing is free speech carried out to it's extreme. Milo has the right to say whatever he wants, but that doesn't free him from being responsible for what he says.

People are going to react. Don't say inflammatory things then write a column on Breitbart a day or two later about how your free speech was stifled by protesters.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

These are not protest. This is destruction of other peoples property. So basically all these animals are bunch of dumb arse babies that don't even know what a protest is. They need to grow up.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Do people really care about bloggers(he is nothing more) like that gay Nazi that is looking like a Wham groupie?
I mean, a gay Nazi...!
Can something be more schizophrenic???

What´s next?

A black and jewish reborn Adolf Hitler?




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Just as people have the right to say controversial and inflammatory things. Others have the right to disagree and voice that disagreement. So yes, when you get on a soapbox. You have to be prepared that not everyone will like what you say.

What happened though is not free speech being carried out to its extreme. Committing crimes and violent acts to stop someone you disagree with from speaking. Is a completely different thing. Free speech does not cover acts of violence and mob mentality.

So what happened was the stifling of free speech. The man was not allowed to talk. Because "protesters" decided to stop it from happening. By causing a riot.

Why could they not just ignore him and let his audience hear what he has to say. Why is that so hard to do. Does everyone have to think like you do. Why are some so scared of words. Words are only as strong as you make them. The brain is a wonderful thing. It can disagree. You will not magically be taken over by the words that come out of someones mouth.

If you disagree with him. Get on your own soapbox and say so. Tear down his message by forming a stronger message that refutes what he says. Debate. Counter his memes. Heck, even use your words to say inflammatory thing about him. Fair is fair.

Just don't act like a violent animal. Be a Man, or Woman, a Human worthy of respect.

Using violence to stop someone from speaking their mind. Is always wrong. No matter who is doing it. No matter what political side they are on.

I can give two craps about Milo. But I would never be scared to hear what the man had to say. I would just let him say it. Then go on with my day.
edit on 2-2-2017 by karmicecstasy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




The fact is that the answer to your question is "As long as people feel a need to protest".


If you really believe that these "protests" in America are organized at the grassroots level by the common people and ONLY the common people then you really need to take a step back and follow the money.

Matching pre-made signs, matching pre-made outfits in many cases. Nothing weird about any of that right? Its almost as if some globalist billionaire oligarch who has quite a long and extensive history of doing these sorts of things abroad is organizing and funding much of it. This latest "womens march" which was not really a march for anything about women so much as it was against Trump in general.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about.


Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.


nytlive.nytimes.com...

At this point, Trump could nominate Jesus for Secretary of State and it be spun into he hates Satanists so he must be evil himself.


Billionaire liberal activist George Soros is helping fund the airport protests against President Donald Trump's executive order to ban refugees from war-torn Syria indefinitely and suspend visas from seven countries for at least 30 days, as PJ Media reported Sunday.


www.newsmax.com...



That being said, the methodology applied by the protestors (actually in this case, an angry mob, which is somewhat different) in this instance is entirely inappropriate.


Have you noticed a trend there? I certainly have.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JinMI

Is that not somewhat of an odd question?

Tell me, what sort of weakness would have to be abroad amongst the American population, for things which seemed wrong to them on one day, appear to be less wrong on another day of the week? How unfounded would ones political beliefs be, if they simply ceased to be important after a time of being expressed in great voice?

The fact is that the answer to your question is "As long as people feel a need to protest".

That being said, the methodology applied by the protestors (actually in this case, an angry mob, which is somewhat different) in this instance is entirely inappropriate. It was a speaking event by a famous for nothing, not a White Supremacist rally. Antifa do not need to be rocking up to Milo's speaking engagements, because Milo is not known for violence. Antifa (a group whose existence I thoroughly endorse by the way) are best deployed into scenarios where actual militant White Supremacists, fascists, racists or other partially organised and historically violent groups from the right, might attempt to make a statement with violence, as a countermeasure.



This kind of knots up in places. What these antifa did last night at Berkley is unacceptable. You don't need to start fires to make a point and smashing things isn't free speech. However, I do believe it is right to protest Milo .

Breitbart has participated in a new sort of coup. The former editor and CEO, without any military, political, or intelligence now sits at the right hand of the President as well as sitting on the National Security Council even as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the National Intelligence Director were dismissed.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

The hypocrisy!

Tea Party protests against all manner of things were known to be savage, thuggish, and violent as well, but so few people on the right decried those protests, or the manner in which they were conducted.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




Tea Party protests against all manner of things were known to be savage, thuggish, and violent as well, but so few people on the right decried those protests, or the manner in which they were conducted.


So instead of responding to my questions you name call and bring up something nowhere near relevant. Par for the course with the left these days.

I'm not saying that it does'nt happen on the right, but not near the frequency that you see today on the left. Even in the Tea Party days, how often did you see someone from the hateful right enact violence to stop someone else from talking? How often do you see it today with Trump?

And there are probably more peaceful protesters than violent ones, but I bet you money that even the peaceful ones will be happy about the effects of the violent ones. They stopped ol Milo from speaking, and in doing so they pretty much proved what he was saying.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   
It will get worse with the tyranny of this administration.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks




but that doesn't free him from being responsible for what he says.



And how is a bunch of Liberals, whose only "reaction" is to whine, cry and burn a campus when someone does have a different opinion, his fault? How is he responsible for that?
That is one [ among many ] things I just despise about Liberals. Their ability to blame anyone and everyone for their actions. "You made me do it".
No. Just...Fu**ing. NO.
No one makes them get violent. No one makes them light fires or anything they do, but that seems to be the only way they know how to respond to anyone who has a different opinion. I'm all for everyone having the right to free speech, no matter which side you're on, but when sh** like that gets started, the police need to step in and start busting heads.
These whiny little crybabies need to start learning that their actions, which in most cases are putting others lives at risk, have serious consequences.
If Hillary had won and protestors from the Right were doing this, you can bet it would be handled differently. The Left would be calling for their heads on a pike in front of the White House. But, since it's Liberals that are doing it....well, that's just fine, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I see the threat to free speech coming from the left AND right. Something, I've not seen on this scale in this country in my lifetime.

In addition to the riots identified in this thread, there's the whole fake news narrative that while not addressed specifically by government means yet, has plenty of people from both sides of the spectrum demanding for as much.

Take for example, just the views expressed in this thread: Main Stream Media Fake News And Political Bias Is A National Security Issue

I barely recognize this country anymore.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

First of all, I did not name call you, or anyone else. I do not know where you got the idea that I did, but it was not from reading my post, unless of course you wanted to read something into it that was not there.

And as for what is happening now... Very slick, but you cannot throw this stone unless you have NEVER stepped foot in the glass house. The Tea Party WERE savage in their behaviour, thuggish in their attitudes, their "protests" were little more than excuses to block accesses, scream abuse, pull hair, throw things at people just going about their daily business, and so on. That is what happened. It does not matter a damn that they are not doing those things now, why would they? The government does it for them now!



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join