UC Berkeley must allow conservatives to speak on campus

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Your point? I'm not telling anyone to whip another's ass, I'm simply saying those whose asses get whipped often should have foreseen it coming long before it happened.

To be fair Burd, when were talking about protest - I'm pretty sure they know what to expect

Charlottesville indicated that may not be the case.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: underpass61

Here's the thing though, conservatives wouldn't bother. It's their right to talk let 'em have it. We are not afflicted by the chronic insecurity that consumes the left. "Sticks and stones" you know.

When I said (earlier in the thread) that sometimes the illegal thing is the moral thing? This is what I'm talking about. Riots in the freaking streets if necessary

If - necessary. It's not necessary. Yet

Not for freaking Ann Coulter or Milo or any of these bellyaching attention seeking yahoos. But, I am older - and have some perspective

So, By Any Means Necessary - check

As far as the 2nd Amendment, we're talking here about private citizens speaking on a school campus not our legislators trying to monkey with the Constitution. Not the same thing at all.

I still can't understand how someone could be so insecure that words scare them. Seems pretty irrational.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: olaru12
I sense a bigly amount of hypocrisy....

Just imagine what would happen to a brown person at a trump rally wanting her children back.

Think she would be allowed to speak?

Is that how you view them? "Brown people"?

Yeah, just like I see white people as white people. like me....you got a problem with that amigo?

The people I associate with are brown people that call themselves "Mexicans" even though they were born in Oklahoma. What's your deal man?

I just don't like racism.

Do you think I'm racist for seeing racial and cultural differences. Here in the Rio Grande valley is the most tolerant area in the US with, Indians, gringos, Mexicans, blacks all getting along fantastic until some dumb ass yankee or cracker stirs the pot.

Well, I don't know if you're racist or not—and I apologize for implying anything of the sort. I just believe race and color based thinking is inherently racist, and racism necessarily arises from it. Again, I apologize.

No worries, you would be welcome at any of our fiestas, pueblo feasts, bbqs, or gringo soirees. They are almost always a cultural/racial mix unless it's a specific religious event on the pueblos or rez. It truly is the "Land of Enchantment"

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah. So - the times we live in - right?

Let's just hope it doesn't go any further than this

I confess - I am not hopeful

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CynConcepts

Why are you asking me?

I have been busy with family dinner time but will go back and read the many pages that have posted since your post to me. If you have finally spoke your truth already...I apologize.

Why not? You have been participating in this thread and it was frustrating that you were not seemingly being honest or actually have not really considered your own truth to share.

Personally, I don't think heckling is considered peaceful protesting...it is simply rude.

Peaceful protesting is standing outside a venue and not deterring others, but allowing them to read your concerns on a sign or your voice of discernation thus allowing another to consider your point on their own.

You don't cram your personal opinion nor block another from being able to self-determine their own opinion by hearing both sides of a debate. That is fascism not protesting.

a reply to: underpass61

So, By Any Means Necessary - check

I think you probably still misunderstand me. But, that's OK

I still can't understand how someone could be so insecure that words scare them. Seems pretty irrational.

Its all words underpass. That's a longer conversation - but I agree with you - partly. Like I said - these speakers aren't worth it. But as Burd just pointed out (and Sublimecraft earlier - in a different way) actions have consequences. And words are actions

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You're right. No one is guaranteed a platform. But that is not to say someone should have a platform taken away from them after it has already been given to them.

Check out this disinvitation database. Though in recent years most "disinvitations" occur from the left, you might note that a lot still occur from the right, for the crime of the speaker possessing views that contradict their orthodoxy. So it isn't really a political issue—or at least it shouldn't be—it's a matter of human rights.

a reply to: CynConcepts

This I agree with.

For most of the speakers on a campus, they are brought in by campus groups at some expense to the group. People who want to hear them generally have to pay a fee for admission or otherwise seek the venue out in order to hear them. There is almost never a requirement to go and hear them unless you are assigned by a class as homework.

Bernie Sanders at Liberty was an anomaly, not the norm.

So it would be the easiest thing in the world to send a clear message that these ideas as not welcome. Simply do not show up. And empty venue is the clearest indication no one wants to hear what you have to say. Let the speaker fill the empty space in front of him with his words. They do nothing.

But, no. Hecklers must go and prevent the empty air from being empty by shouting stupid nonsense. All they prove is their intolerance of ideas that are not their own.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Why not? You have been participating in this thread and it was frustrating that you were not seemingly being honest or actually have not really considered your own truth to share.

I was never dishonest. You can read back through my posts and decide for yourself

...it is simply rude.

That's how I see it

Peaceful protesting is standing outside a venue and not deterring others, but allowing them to read your concerns on a sign or your voice of discernation thus allowing another to consider your point on their own.

You don't cram your personal opinion nor block another from being able to self-determine their own opinion by hearing both sides of a debate. That is fascism not protesting.

Pretty much what I've been saying. With the exception of potential extenuating circumstances

Fear of fascism kinda creates it's own momentum :-)

a reply to: Propagandalf

So it isn't really a political issue—or at least it shouldn't be—it's a matter of human rights.

Bingo

I agree with you completely

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Propagandalf

So it isn't really a political issue—or at least it shouldn't be—it's a matter of human rights.

Bingo

I agree with you completely

Now, about that "words are actions" claim... Bah, forget it.

Wow.

10 pages.

I figured that everyone would be in agreement that free expression is paramount and the thread would die in 6 posts.


Just goes to show that even old and wise people are sometimes wrong.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Wow.

10 pages.

I figured that everyone would be in agreement that free expression is paramount and the thread would die in 6 posts.


Just goes to show that even old and wise people are sometimes wrong.

Funny how those defending free speech do so clearly and concisely.

Those defending heckling to silence it, and the need to break the law and have violent riots eventually to censor the necessary people feel the need to be very vague with their statements.

a reply to: Propagandalf

Now, about that "words are actions" claim... Bah, forget it.

If there was no cause and effect because of words? You could make that argument, but I know you know it isn't valid. Words are everything to the humans

It's words uncoupled from reason - there's our problem

But it's not like it's not a fun one to argue

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Propagandalf

Now, about that "words are actions" claim... Bah, forget it.

If there was no cause and effect because of words? You could make that argument, but I know you know it isn't valid. Words are everything to the humans

It's words uncoupled from reason - there's our problem

But it's not like it's not a fun one to argue

We agree again. Words are everything to humans. That's why it pains us to see them suppressed.

a reply to: Propagandalf

We agree again. Words are everything to humans. That's why it pains us to see them suppressed.

Or misunderstood

:-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Propagandalf

We agree again. Words are everything to humans. That's why it pains us to see them suppressed.

Or misunderstood

:-)

And misrepresented. I understood you.

Sometimes pictures speak louder than words.







Peaceful protest?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Sometimes pictures speak louder than words.

Peaceful protest?

Peaceful assembly.

a reply to: Blaine91555

...then they play the victim card when anyone fights back against them or speaks out against their actions. Aren't childish tantrums wonderful?