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.

 

Conservatives that dare to speak in liberal areas are agitators

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: luthier




Shapiro is willing to debate with logic instead of propaganda


Sure.

But what exactly happened now to justify the whining? Anyone hurt, broken windows, burning cars? What am I? Where am I? Let's see what happens when BLM rolls up in the KKK headquarter to hold rallies and speeches. Will the people there react equally civilised? Maybe that's a good strawman for the collection, we already know the answer.


So Berkely is the left's equivalent of the KKK's headquarters - good to know.

edit on 9 15 2017 by underpass61 because: sp




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well over 80 percent of university professors are left leaning.

Almost every university is left leaning.

So if a conservative wants to speak at any campus that leans left, he is an agitator?

It seems ridiculous. And Ben has spoke at many campuses, not just berekely. So was he agitating then too?

When Bernie spoke at liberty university was he agitating?

I went to a small state school in rural pennsylvania. Last year, Cornell West spoke and I went to here him, and he spoke to this overwhelmingly rural white audience about the positives of blm. Was he agitating?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

So you really think there is a conservative at Berkley? I certainly doubt it.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You and I know that's an entirely different thing.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler
Not much more to say. Just ask some of our left leaning ats members.

Ben Shapiro is an agitator for speaking a berkeley. No reason needed, the mere fact that he dares to have a conservative opinion proves he is just an agitator.

How tolerant!


If you KNOW you're going to stir up #, yes, you are an agitator.


So, because you KNOW a campus is full of violent idiots, it's your own fault if you decide to speak there, rather than the violent idiots fault?


A fire doesn't start itself. It needs a spark.


Terrible analogy.

All of those civil rights rallies where racist attacked the marchers, it was the civil rights people that were the spark right.

I mean, had those uppity blacks just kept to there own areas, there wouldn't have been a problem.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Grambler

You and I know that's an entirely different thing.


Oh so it's ok to take your message to areas that disagree with the speaker as long as it meets your criteria of being a good thing?

Them tell me, at what point is I worthwhile for a conservative to have a speech in a liberal area? Never?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I don't get it. I lean liberal when it doesn't have to do with the federal government and am in no way offended by his dialogues. In fact I find it refreshing he is articulating problems coherently even I don't agree with him.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: seeker1963

So you really think there is a conservative at Berkley? I certainly doubt it.


You can't be serious!?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

I don't get it. I lean liberal when it doesn't have to do with the federal government and am in no way offended by his dialogues. In fact I find it refreshing he is articulating problems coherently even I don't agree with him.


I know. And let's not forget many liberals disagreed with him and asked questions and it was great.

The amount of people that just want to call him an agitator proves many people are not interested in hearing ideas they disagree with, they just want an echo chamber.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Ranting is one thing....bickering and name-calling quite another:
Community Announcement re: Decorum
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

He was great on the Joe Rogan show a while back. It was a good forum to see him not have to fight for votes on YouTube and see him just talk.

Ps Joe Rogan for president!
edit on 15-9-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

He was great on the Joe Rogan show a while back. It was a good forum to see him not have to fight for votes on YouTube and see him just talk.


I know it was a great episode.

I miss the days of conservative and liberal speakers having debates on issues, particularly in college campuses.

How far have we fallen when merely expressing conservative ideas on a liberal campus is considered fringe or agitating?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler
Not much more to say. Just ask some of our left leaning ats members.

Ben Shapiro is an agitator for speaking a berkeley. No reason needed, the mere fact that he dares to have a conservative opinion proves he is just an agitator.

How tolerant!


If you KNOW you're going to stir up #, yes, you are an agitator.


So the civil rights fighters that had sit ins in white only establishments were agitators?


Yes. I didn't say agitation is wrong. You guys are considering it so. Sometimes it's needed. The goal is what matters. If it's agitation for the sake of it or to score political "points" it's not a decent goal imo.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




What is so inflammatory to the left that he says? He is an orthodox jew. Not a white supramicist.


He's a sheep after revising his insane nonsense. Aye Aye.


A decade later, however, Shapiro reversed his position. In an article published on March 13, 2013, Shapiro wrote, "Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave the way to peace" and while "both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary," he proposes that Israel "has no choice but to weather [the anti-Israeli propaganda]" until a realistic solution comes to light.

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh. That kind of "orthodox"...



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Pretty farAnd the unfortunate response is the alt right which ironically Shapiro is also weary of as negative identity politics.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler
Not much more to say. Just ask some of our left leaning ats members.

Ben Shapiro is an agitator for speaking a berkeley. No reason needed, the mere fact that he dares to have a conservative opinion proves he is just an agitator.

How tolerant!


If you KNOW you're going to stir up #, yes, you are an agitator.


So the civil rights fighters that had sit ins in white only establishments were agitators?


Yes. I didn't say agitation is wrong. You guys are considering it so. Sometimes it's needed. The goal is what matters. If it's agitation for the sake of it or to score political "points" it's not a decent goal imo.


I would not consider the sit ins agitation. Agitation to me implies a desire to provoke a negative reaction.

I think the sit ins were about brave people showing how disgusting racism was, not about provoking a reaction.

Someone like Milo is provoking. But I think Shapiro is different, he actually wanted to discuss ideas.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Doesn't dialogue require opposing viewpoints? If so, then it falls upon the audience to both want a dialogue and respect opposing viewpoint speakers if they embrace the idea of free speech.

If no opposing viewpoints are tolerated and met with violence, how does that differ from the totalitarian model?

When feelings overrule logic, you get get this type of violent reaction.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Pretty farAnd the unfortunate response is the alt right which ironically Shapiro is also weary of as negative identity politics.


Exactly. I say let all of the extremists talk.

The way to discredit Richard Spencer isn't to punch or silence him, it's to allow him to spread his dumb message so everyone can see it for what it is.

But when you call anyone you disagree with a racist or extreme or a nazi etc., it only fuels extremism on both sides.

Now Shapiro, counter ,Milo ,sommers, rand paul, Gingrich , Condi rice, spencer, are all lumped into the same way by some, and that allows people to call for the silencing of them all based on the actions of people that have nothing in common with each other.

Look at this thread. People are honestly questioning why a conservative would bother to speak at Berkeley, and claiming it must be for agitation.

At the "birth place" of the free speech movement!

It's unreal!



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It's really the way the message can be so enforced with media dialogues. All these fringe noise groups are making way to much headway in the US.

The response that is healthy is to reject extreme views as being normal not create the opposite extreme view.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler
Not much more to say. Just ask some of our left leaning ats members.

Ben Shapiro is an agitator for speaking a berkeley. No reason needed, the mere fact that he dares to have a conservative opinion proves he is just an agitator.

How tolerant!


If you KNOW you're going to stir up #, yes, you are an agitator.


So the civil rights fighters that had sit ins in white only establishments were agitators?


Yes. I didn't say agitation is wrong. You guys are considering it so. Sometimes it's needed. The goal is what matters. If it's agitation for the sake of it or to score political "points" it's not a decent goal imo.


I would not consider the sit ins agitation. Agitation to me implies a desire to provoke a negative reaction.

I think the sit ins were about brave people showing how disgusting racism was, not about provoking a reaction.


Of course not. It doesn't fit your narrative and allow for Ben's agitation. You don't think they knew there was going to be a negative reaction? If so you must be too young to remember those times.


Someone like Milo is provoking. But I think Shapiro is different, he actually wanted to discuss ideas.


See? You slap one agitation and forgive another. Bias doesn't move me.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join