Berkeley professors cancel classes for 'mental safety'

a reply to: xuenchen

I literally feel sorry for the taxpayers and families who pay for these students to attend this school. It should be shut down.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Cancelling class so that they can boycott an event? Erm, what?

This makes like literally no sense.

Surely if they're in class or whatever, they're not attending the event. So they cancel classes so they can not attend the event...

Someone check these professors credentials please. Nobody with an education could come up with such a stupid scheme.

Unless it's some form of weird newspeak. Where "boycott" means "protest", and "protest" means "riot."

Actually I think it is the other way around - Nobody without an education could come up with such a stupid idea.

No, I am not joking. You never hear of stuff like this outside academia.

a reply to: Stevenjames15

Milo is many, many things.
Obtuse is not one of them.

a reply to: Kharron

from this, what I can only describe as an act of provocation.

More and more this is how it is seeming to me. As I've mentioned in a couple of other posts in this thread, it appears that this ''event' is at best poorly planned and being promoted with very little organization. Contracts have not been signed, and security for these big names not been arraigned as of yesterday.

There is also the usurping of the name Mario Savio, long held as an icon of free speech by most on the left. This award seems concocted especially for this event and will be given out only one week prior to the well established Mario Savio Young Activist award and has all appearances of being nothing more than provocation.

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: xuenchen

Some of the worst, most obtuse people in our country. Very Anti American. However, they have every right to speak.

And every single person at Berkeley has a right not not attend.

That's the beautiful thing!

No one has to stop them from speaking because it's not liking anyone at all is being forced to listen to a word any of them say.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Makes on wonder about how people felt about the original free speech movement at Berkeley?

You don't think they were intentionally provocative in pushing for what they felt were their rights to speak?

Just read about not-provocative it all was!

a reply to: xuenchen

Boycott free speech!!! You can't make this stuff up unfortunately

One might wish to draw similarities such as you bring up. But they are not similar at all. The original free-speech advocates from the early 1960s in Berkeley were students struggling for freedom of speech against an entrenched establishment. None of them were big names from around the country. All of them faced jail for their protests.

What we have here is a collection of very big name conservative activist put together to promote a big event. They are not fighting against an entrenched establishment, although many would say they are, but rather they are seeking to promote their own agenda.none of those speakers will be facing jail time or the might of the state trying to silence them as was the case in the early 60s

a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Wheres whats his face to tell us that the existence of SJW is just an urban myth?

Perhaps we should start an ats crayon donation drive to help those poor poor souls during this most trying week of their lives...

Definitely not an urban myth, because of my work and social justicey studies in the past, I know scores of them. I was out with sjw type folk last night.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The same so-called movement is now using the same disruptive tactics to prevent speech they don't want to be spoken, much like the evil administrators you are talking about.

They stared in the mirror too long and become what they fought against.

What they are receiving is push back and it's long overdue. People need to see how illiberal they've become. Free speech isn't something they and only they get to have or grant, just like it wasn't up to those long ago administrators to decide.

If it cost $600,000 for last nights security I can imagine it will cost 10 times that for 4 days of security. Spend it and look STUPID to civilized people.

But it's Berkley so it doesn't matter.

originally posted by: mikell
If it cost $600,000 for last nights security I can imagine it will cost 10 times that for 4 days of security. Spend it and look STUPID to civilized people.

But it's Berkley so it doesn't matter.

. I'm hoping Antifa shows up in a big way, it be a shame to waste all that effort.

a reply to: Kharron

even if you don't want to here what the speakers want to say , it's not an excuse to protest and riot . Have some liberal speakers go to Hillsdale Collage . I bet they would be allowed to speak and people would listen . They may not agree , but hearing a different side should not cause violence .

a reply to: ketsuko

The same so-called movement is now using the same disruptive tactics to prevent speech they don't want to be spoken, much like the evil administrators you are talking about.

This so-called movement is not the the Free Speech Movement of Mario Savio. If it is a movement it is a movement of people who fear the US falling under the spell of fascist rhetoric.
Your statement

They stared in the mirror too long and become what they fought against.

is interesting and as a metaphor I cannot disagree with it. To me there doe's seem a streak of narcissism in the ''so-called ''leftist'' protests in recent years. And I also agree that their antics are childish and will not achieve the ends they are hoping for. Nor will they achieve the ends real liberals are looking for. To use your term below, they have become illiberal.

What they are receiving is push back and it's long overdue. People need to see how illiberal they've become. Free speech isn't something they and only they get to have or grant, just like it wasn't up to those long ago administrators to decide.

But just who is this '''pushback'' playing out against, and who is pushing back? Is it Milo, or Bannon or Coulter?

Savio was an instramental voice in the uprising in December of 64. That protest sprung from a fellow sitting at a table on campus handing out leftlets in support of the Congress of Racial Equality. He was arrrested and the protest grew from that moment. Savio gave a couple of great speeches over the next period and was elected the face of the protests by the MEDIA.

After that he moved on. Got married, moved to England and persued further education. He held numerous jobs in his life in academia and other venues. But he never sought the fame of that moment nor capitalized on that fame. From what I recall, he never even wrote a book about that time or anything else.

Compared to that, what we see here is completely different. Milo has written numerous books on conservative values and strategy. Coulter is a never ending fount of conservative rhetoric with dozens of books written and interviews held and magazine articles. And then there is Bannon, another big name for the right wing. Huge followings, huge profits, huge branding potentials.

If this event goes south, and the mirror gazers show up in mass, the advertising that will follow will be enormous for these self styled heroes of the conservative ''pushback'' you mention. Unlike Savio who did not receive any financial benefit for being the hero at that time and place, these heroes will just suck up the adoration and write another book to tell ''all about it''.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Does it matter?

You have a concerted effort by people who claim they are "saving" people from a bunch of folks who were invited to speak, and are only speaking in venues where anyone who wants to hear them must pay for the privilege.

This isn't like a situation you had at Liberty where Bernie Sanders was penciled in to give a convocation speech where every student was required to attend and hear what he had to say, regardless of what they wanted.

These ANTIFA groups think they are justified because they want to label the speech of conservative ideas as "violence" and that therefore, they are justified in carrying out violence to prevent these speakers from having their say in private venues speaking to attendees who pay to hear them speak.

If you can't see how this is just as dangerous as the long ago administrators who felt they could similarly police the thoughts and speech of the students on the campus, then I can't help you. ANTIFA is literally arbitrating what speech they do and don't allow to proceed based on their designation of "violence."

This reality needs to be dug out from under its ugly little rock and demonstrated visibly and graphically to the American people by anyone and everyone who has the means to go in and lance that boil.

We're gonna need crayons, coloring books and Play-Doh... stat!

a reply to: ketsuko

Does it matter?

Yes, it does if we are going to compare the two examples of standing up for free speech.

You have a concerted effort by people who claim they are "saving" people from a bunch of folks who were invited to speak, and are only speaking in venues where anyone who wants to hear them must pay for the privilege.

Yes, I agree

This isn't like a situation you had at Liberty where Bernie Sanders was penciled in to give a convocation speech where every student was required to attend and hear what he had to say, regardless of what they wanted.

If it was a convocation hen wouldn't it be a mandatory attendance no matter who was giving it?

These ANTIFA groups think they are justified because they want to label the speech of conservative ideas as "violence" and that therefore, they are justified in carrying out violence to prevent these speakers from having their say in private venues speaking to attendees who pay to hear them speak.

Again, i agree. And let me point out that in our discussions nor, do i think you might find that I do not stand up for antifada or these mass protests in any of my postings.

If you can't see how this is just as dangerous as the long ago administrators who felt they could similarly police the thoughts and speech of the students on the campus, then I can't help you. ANTIFA is literally arbitrating what speech they do and don't allow to proceed based on their designation of "violence."

Once more, i agree, though I wonder at your assumption that i needed help. Assuming that I do not already take these things into my evaluation of things.

And just to add to your mentioning the problems between the FSM and the administrators, it was not just the administrators, it was not just the University nor the state of California but the entire establishment with the recent McCarthy purges so fresh on people minds. These students risked jail time and the loss of their career opportunities and being branded as commies just because they stood for free speech.

This reality needs to be dug out from under its ugly little rock and demonstrated visibly and graphically to the American people by anyone and everyone who has the means to go in and lance that boil.

And finally, i agree once more, which leads me to my whole point. Just who is doing the leading in this march to right the wrongs of these repressors of free speech. People who are willing to sacrifice their freedom and their futures for the fight, or,,,,,,outside agitators who already have been paid millions for their struggle, and will continue to do so until the money bag runs dry.

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: xuenchen

Some of the worst, most obtuse people in our country. Very Anti American. However, they have every right to speak.

I agree these professors have that right. Boycotting Free speech is still deplorable.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And I am telling you that it should not matter who does it.

It's like assigning virtue to some science because it isn't privately funded and ignoring other science because it is.

Speech is speech, and here you are assigning morality based on your perception of the speaker and your perception of their motive. People accuse the right of doing this with pornography all the time.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And I am telling you that it should not matter who does it.

It's like assigning virtue to some science because it isn't privately funded and ignoring other science because it is.

Speech is speech, and here you are assigning morality based on your perception of the speaker and your perception of their motive. People accuse the right of doing this with pornography all the time.

You are right in that it should not matter. Speech is speech. But is that all we are talking about here? If so, then we agree. But this is not just about ''free speech. It IS about morality and political power plays which you have alluded to several times in this discussion. And in that I disagree with you on the innocence of this whole conglomeration of speakers who are supposedly involved in this coming event. For all your dislike of the ''protesters'' (one which I share)
you do not seem to hold the involvement of Milo and crew to the same moral standards.