WATCH LIVE 7 PM PT: Hurricane Ben Hits Berkeley

originally posted by: ADSE255
They advertize these Hurricanes like they're advertising the next the latest Starwars movie.

Either way you take this, it made me laugh out loud.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just a public service for the severely hypocritical. You are welcome.

LOL ... I guess you spend a lot of time talking to yourself then.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You shoulda waited till I fixed my typo

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Gryphon66



Hand in hand with your stance throughout this thread, that Shapiro is agitating, take a look at this new thread about a ''Free Speech Week'' coming up in Berkeley.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looks like the provocation is doubling down.

I saw it. This kind of spectacle fits in perfectly with the hateful ideology of folks like Colter and Milo particularly. (I guess Milo thinks that everyone has forgotten his pro-pedophilia comments).

Sooner than later, the line will be crossed from speech acts to incitement. Then, one can only hope that our "law and order" friends here are consistent with their beliefs and roundly condemn such behavior.

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

If Milo or any other right leaning people call for violence, I will be right there with you calling him out.

Can you show proof of him doing that?

While you are certain this will be done sooner or latee, people with that exact argument are using violence to stop these speakers because they are certain they will incite violence.

How about instead of dealing with hypotheticals, we focus on the people actually using and inciting violence to shut up conservative speakers.

originally posted by: ADSE255
a reply to: Gryphon66

You should waited till I fixed my typo

Honesty is refreshing on this thread.

Again ...

Nm
..

a reply to: Grambler

Unlike you, I can't claim to be able to predict Milo's future. I shared my general opinion about where these "free speech" episodes are going, the only point of which is, certainly in the cases of UTR, Colter and Milo, to spread a hateful message.

Not a conservative message. No one would have a single issue with calling for a balanced budget, fiscal responsibility, etc. You cannot suggest that the folks listed are merely interested in promoting a political viewpoint.

If that is your point, then I disagree with you completely. Their intention is to further their brand of being obnoxious.

I have said here that I want to see everyone that assaults others or vandalizes property dealt with properly under the terms of the law.

I am not of the opinion, as you seem to be, that those people all belong to one group or ideology, nor do I think that we should focus our attention on the "opposite side" to our own preferences.

Clear?

originally posted by: underwerks
While everyone is here signaling their outrage, has anyone bothered to ask themselves why these far right conservative speakers keep selecting Berkeley, the home of liberalism, to hold their rallies at?

And then act amazed when half the city shows up to protest?

Because they CAN. And why not ? I thought all the liberals believe in diversity.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I never claimed those using violence to silence speech are all of one group.

But the victims are always conservative. Again, show me anyone rioting to prevent a liberal speaker.

Why should we ignore that?

And what does Shapiro have to with Milo? What hate was he spreading that there had to be 600 thousand dollars of security to defend him?

originally posted by: underwerks
While everyone is here signaling their outrage, has anyone bothered to ask themselves why these far right conservative speakers keep selecting Berkeley, the home of liberalism, to hold their rallies at?

And then act amazed when half the city shows up to protest?

I mean, he's not even far right. We as a country have been moving the posts for what left and right is to the left steadily. What the right is today is what the left was in the 90's.

That's what's confusing. Shapiro talks economics, he's right, it's math. Other than that, he just preaches free speech, how does that make him a far right speaker?

So he thinks identity politics is bad, it's because it is -- it's not based on anything other than predetermined Bias. It's not looking at the issues, it's looking at what it wants as a solution and creating problems to help them incorporate said solution. There is nothing left or right about that statement, that's a true statement, A-Political.

He doesn't really even talk about politics, he talks about what REAL politics are, and what's actually happening in the country right now.

Some of his views are far right, but he doesn't even make mention of these at speeches like he gave in UC berkley.

His furthest "right" leaning view point is that he is against abortion. Other than that, he's pretty sane.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Unlike you, I can't claim to be able to predict Milo's future. I shared my general opinion about where these "free speech" episodes are going, the only point of which is, certainly in the cases of UTR, Colter and Milo, to spread a hateful message.

Not a conservative message. No one would have a single issue with calling for a balanced budget, fiscal responsibility, etc. You cannot suggest that the folks listed are merely interested in promoting a political viewpoint.

If that is your point, then I disagree with you completely. Their intention is to further their brand of being obnoxious.

I have said here that I want to see everyone that assaults others or vandalizes property dealt with properly under the terms of the law.

I am not of the opinion, as you seem to be, that those people all belong to one group or ideology, nor do I think that we should focus our attention on the "opposite side" to our own preferences.

Clear?

I mean say what you want to say, but show me some speeches that shows Milo preaching hate -- you won't be able to. The "worst" thing Milo said is that some teenagers are mature enough to engage in sexual practice, regardless if you think that's true or not, almost all teenagers are engaging in sexual practice anyway. He didn't condone sexual predators -- he just said not everyone who chooses a teenager as a partner is one. It's degrees of reality, there are no absolutes.

Milo isn't racist, nor is he against your right to your own opinion. He doesn't like Islam, he's not out there preaching to ban the practice of it.

Milo and Shapiro don't like each other and I'm not quite sure why, because they literally fight for the exact same cause and make the same exact points that are true.

a reply to: SRPrime

You've paraphrased his statements and given us your interpretation of Milo. I wonder why?

The post you're responding to is directly related to the terms of a conversation with another member.

I have made no comparison between Milo and Ben.

I'll be glad to give you a few examples of the hateful speech I referred to but at present I'm on mobile.

ETA: Okay, back in front of the computer:

Behind every racist joke is a scientific fact.

On campuses, where Liberal softies still rule with an iron fist, feminism is as safe as a city with no women drivers. That is the only thing I support about Saudi Arabia, by the way.

Feminism is cancer.

Just off the top of my head. However, as required, here's a link to a Milo quote page: Source

The biggest issue that I personally have with him is that his intention is to drag down every level of discourse to that of an internet troll. His intention in his "dangerous faggot" persona is to glorify and aggrandize the worst contemporary tendencies in our society. It's good to insult people; it's good to humiliate them. He brags about being a bully.

He is promoting the very hate and control that he supposedly intends to fight against. He has brought the tactics of "radical SJW feminism" to the right-wing.

At any rate, that's an answer to your comments ...

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

I never claimed those using violence to silence speech are all of one group.

But the victims are always conservative. Again, show me anyone rioting to prevent a liberal speaker.

Why should we ignore that?

And what does Shapiro have to with Milo? What hate was he spreading that there had to be 600 thousand dollars of security to defend him?

Well, if the anti-free speech folks are not part of a recognizable group or movement or organization or party or club or ... whatever ... then what are they?

Are you saying there's just a spontaneous urge among individuals to quell "conservatives"?

If so, why are they always assigned to "leftists" rather than just "criminals" or "thugs" or perhaps "anarchists"?

Are you really saying that no other political speech is protested in the country other than "conservative"?

Are you really saying that the crap that Colter and Milo regularly spout is mainstream "conservative"?

Have I compared Milo and Ben?

In regard to right-wing violence directed at others to "shut down speeches"... you're asking a very specific question, and I can't help but think it's for a reason.

As far as violence from right-wing groups directed toward others? I'll be glad to give you a general list:

Anti-abortion activists
White Supremacists including KKK, Nazis, Aryan Nation, etc.
Anti-federalist militias
Trump supporters at his rallies
Tea Party groups

As far as incidents, the MO of a lot of right-wing violence is a person-to-person or multi-person attack on on individuals.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Look at you trying to bait people with your nonsense.

Lol.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

Look at you trying to bait people with your nonsense.

Lol.

Look at another post from you accomplishing nothing aside from personal commentary.

a reply to: Gryphon66

A couple times someone has asked, "Have you considered why these conservative speakers keep coming to ultra-liberal Berkley?"


How about this: Maybe they think it's pointless to preach to the choir. Maybe they're hoping they might show someone who's never considered it a different side of the argument? Maybe they want to tell people that there's more than one viewpoint? After all, if you really have a message you want people to hear, it's kind of pointless to keep saying the same old thing to the same crowd who already agrees with you. If you really feel you have a message, you're going to take it to places where people haven't heard it, or to people who disagree, in an effort to bring them around to your point of view. Wow, you think that might be the answer? Seriously, people, if it was a liberal speaker going to a conservative area, how many of you would have been asking this question? I'm thinking 0.

originally posted by: underwerks
While everyone is here signaling their outrage, has anyone bothered to ask themselves why these far right conservative speakers keep selecting Berkeley, the home of liberalism, to hold their rallies at?

And then act amazed when half the city shows up to protest?

Could you think of a better place to demonstrate your right to free speech?

a reply to: xuenchen

Never heard of him.

Did he say anything new or original? Or, did he just play a medley of the conservative greatest hits?