Conservatives that dare to speak in liberal areas are agitators

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
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"...

Ok? So? What is your solution?

Personally you won't see me defending religious bigotry so neither the Israeli or Palestinian people other than the poor children who have to deal with their cultures failures are to blame. You won't find me crying over religious nuts in the middle east harming themselves,.. the children now that is sad, they have time to be saved from their parents radical religious views of insanity and privilege.

a reply to: intrepid

Your missing the point which is intent.

Shapiro is talking about conservative ideas milo is trolling anyone who can be offended.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: intrepid

Your missing the point which is intent.

THAT is exactly what I said.

Shapiro is talking about conservative ideas milo is trolling anyone who can be offended.

In your opinion. There are many others.

a reply to: intrepid

It's not my opinion. It's a statement based on content.

a reply to: luthier

It's a statement based on content.

Where do we find that?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Same place you would find Shapiro isn't an alternative right guy.

And for good measure how did you find he was so cotroversial and what are some controversial ideas?

Your last fail was great ato showing he has a pretty mainstream common opinion.

originally posted by: intrepid

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.

Ok so Milo and the sit ins were both agitation.

Got it.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

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.

Ok so Milo and the sit ins were both agitation.

Got it.

...and? But you won't go there with Ben though, will you? Bias.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

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.

Ok so Milo and the sit ins were both agitation.

Got it.

...and? But you won't go there with Ben though, will you?

Bias.

No if you considered the sit ins agitators, then Ben certainly would be too.

I just disagree with both.

I guess you would consder every obama speech in a red state agitation too. Or are you biased?

originally posted by: Grambler
I guess you would consder every obama speech in a red state agitation too. Or are you biased?

When? During elections or in office? That's part of the process. You're really reaching now.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler
I guess you would consder every obama speech in a red state agitation too. Or are you biased?

When? During elections or in office? That's part of the process. You're really reaching now.

Why does that matter.

Oh I see. You are biased, and think some are agitators and others aren't.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler
I guess you would consder every obama speech in a red state agitation too. Or are you biased?

When? During elections or in office? That's part of the process. You're really reaching now.

Why does that matter.

Oh I see. You are biased, and think some are agitators and others aren't.

It matters because during an election one has to stump ALL areas for votes The process. That hurt Hillary in states like Wis and Migh. She did little to nothing there hoping history would give her those states. It didn't work.

If you can't or won't see the difference no one can help you with this.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler
I guess you would consder every obama speech in a red state agitation too. Or are you biased?

When? During elections or in office? That's part of the process. You're really reaching now.

Why does that matter.

Oh I see. You are biased, and think some are agitators and others aren't.

It matters because during an election one has to stump ALL areas for votes The process. That hurt Hillary in states like Wis and Migh. She did little to nothing there hoping history would give her those states. It didn't work.

If you can't or won't see the difference no one can help you with this.

There is more than just election speeches. Including giving speeches now. Obama and Hillary have both spoke at religious groups that mostly dislike them.

Bernie spoke at liberty, that to was an agitation though right?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler
I guess you would consder every obama speech in a red state agitation too. Or are you biased?

When? During elections or in office? That's part of the process. You're really reaching now.

Why does that matter.

Oh I see. You are biased, and think some are agitators and others aren't.

It matters because during an election one has to stump ALL areas for votes The process. That hurt Hillary in states like Wis and Migh. She did little to nothing there hoping history would give her those states. It didn't work.

If you can't or won't see the difference no one can help you with this.

There is more than just election speeches. Including giving speeches now. Obama and Hillary have both spoke at religious groups that mostly dislike them.

And you know this how?

Bernie spoke at liberty, that to was an agitation though right?

Don't know that one so no opinion.

a reply to: intrepid

And this whole tit for tat you are currently having is why the concept of free speech, particularly political speech, is so important.

You are going to find all kinds of opinions on what "agitates" a person or people and what does not. It is all subjective, so when you put a standard on speech saying that it must not be spoken with intent to "agitate," then you open the door to what the authorities think is "agitation" or not.

Whereas simply admitting that a person has the right to speak his or her mind, no matter what another's personal opinion or feeling on it is, protects everyone whether you like hearing what they have to say or not, whether you think it's "agitating" to you or not.

a reply to: ketsuko

Did I ever imply that one shouldn't speak? No. I said that one is an agitator. That's all. BTW, the agitator knows s/he is.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: ketsuko

Did I ever imply that one shouldn't speak? No. I said that one is an agitator. That's all. BTW, the agitator knows s/he is.

But it doesn't matter.

MLK and Ghandi were both agitators. Are you upset with them? If not, then it's a moot point whether or not people are agitated by speech because as we can see from history, sometimes, agitation is needed to point out when a wrong is occurring.

The Berkeley Free Speech movement ANTIFA apes has become a bad parody of everything it fought against, and this needs to be driven home.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grambler

Is the opposite not true? Further... Anyone left of center can't seem to say anything without certain factions turning it into hyperbole and encouraging their cronies to start their screeching.

Maybe you're right. Can you tell me when a liberal speaker was threatened with violence and tried to be shut down by the mainstream right? I can't think of any similar situations in the reverse, maybe you can.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah... pretty sure my post included "not fists". But we could include wielding cars as deadly weapons too if you want.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm sure it's happened. Death threats aren't uncommon to speakers, either side. I don't feel like jumping hoops today or chasing goal posts for proof of threats of violence but I recently read a WaPo about ways in which the right shuts down free speech as well.