UC Berkeley must allow conservatives to speak on campus, page 12

posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 02:22 PM

link

I am going to open a therapy dog shelter nearby. Instead of bringing therapy dogs to the students, I am going to lock the students in dog kennels until they start to act like responsible adult members of society. The dogs will be there to keep them company though I don't want them interacting until I can verify whether or not the students are properly socialized.

Spiramirabilis

posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 02:27 PM

link

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't understand why you insist on making it look like we disagree

If you want to understand my thoughts on riots - read my last post to CynConcepts just above

If you still want to pin something ugly on me because you refuse to see what I'm saying - then there really isn't any point in us chatting

________________________

I was gone for a very long time from this place. But, I came back when I felt like I wanted to have these conversations again. I genuinely believe it's worth our time

I've read many posts lately wondering how we might be able to raise the quality of our time and contributions here. I no longer want to waste my time with people looking for a fight. That's just me maybe - but I can choose to seek out quality conversations (even arguments) and pitch the rest

I especially won't waste my time with trolling

You have been here for a long time - and usually put a lot of thought into your posts. I hope when we meet again we can do this differently

edit on 12/5/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 02:37 PM

link

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I wonder. If you knew people were being loaded onto trains and shipped off to camps to be killed - would you protest? Or would you remain silent - and polite?

Loading people onto trains and sending them off to be killed is an action. Speech in a lecture hall is words. Words are not actions. There is a difference.

Peaceful protest is using words. Riots are actions. Heckling is an action, although it uses words. It is a purposeful attempt to stop speech by force of overriding the speaker's ability to speak. If an action occurs that endangers oneself or others, a likewise action to protect oneself or others might... and I emphasize might... become appropriate, but again, speech is not action. Speech is words, and should never... NEVER... be resisted with action.

In the same vein, protesting actions with words can be an exercise in impotence. I will grant that, although it is irrelevant to UC Berkley. I know of no speaker, Coulter, Milo, no one, who has taken action to harm someone by speaking at UC Berkley. There has been plenty of violence against speakers, however.

And exactly where did I say that peaceful protesting or being silent is preferable when confronted with tyrannical actions? Not once. Protest all you want, but do not cross that line from words to violence in order to counter the mere words of others. When you do that, you invite actions from your opponent, and that makes YOU the instigator of violence.

TheRedneck

Spiramirabilis

posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 02:48 PM

link

a reply to: TheRedneck

I was talking about protest when I said this. I have never said anyone should be silenced. That includes protesters

And exactly where did I say that peaceful protesting or being silent is preferable when confronted with tyrannical actions? Not once. Protest all you want, but do not cross that line from words to violence in order to counter the mere words of others. When you do that, you invite actions from your opponent, and that makes YOU the instigator of violence.

I never accused you of anything

You wanted an explanation and I gave you one. And even this you want to argue

edit on 12/5/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 02:52 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I don't understand why you insist on making it look like we disagree

Because it looks like we do.

I am countering your words with words. That is similar to a peaceful (as in, no violence or violent actions) protest. Your words indicate that you have a point where you believe that riots are justified to silence speakers. It does not matter whether we have reached that point... what matters is that the point exists.

I am going to do something here I normally would not do... I placed the mod box around this post (something I rarely do, because I think most people know I abide by it regardless). Now, were I to, hypothetically, break the rules in that box and decide to action your posts because I disagreed with them, that would be wrong. I would be countering your speech with an action. That is never acceptable... NEVER! I believe you have the right to speak what is on your mind, regardless of how strongly I disagree with it. As a matter of fact, I often speak up for members who I disagree with completely, because it is never appropriate, under any circumstances whatsoever to counter words with actions. Never.

I do this, not as any kind of threat because I would never stoop to such a despicable level, but to illustrate what I mean by the division between actions and words. I may not agree with you, but I will defend to my last breath your right to say it. I do not think, based on your posts in this thread, that you can honestly say the same about me.

You have been here for a long time - and usually put a lot of thought into your posts. I hope when we meet again we can do this differently

That would depend on you. I will not change my belief that words can never be confronted with actions. That's one of my tenets that I have lived by since I was very young... and that was a very long time ago.

I do share that hope, though.

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Spiramirabilis

posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 03:00 PM

link

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your words indicate that you have a point where you believe that riots are justified to silence speakers.

Then you haven't been reading my posts. I've said the opposite many times in many posts. You're being disingenuous - fancy box - or no fancy box

You either won't take the time to read, or you are trolling. I'm sorry that you felt the need to keep arguing even when we agree

But - this is how it's going to go I guess

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 05:06 PM

link

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Then how do you explain the "yet" while discussing when violence is an acceptable response to speech? "Yet" indicates something that has not happened, but can happen.

TheRedneck

Spiramirabilis

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 12:25 PM

link

a reply to: TheRedneck

Then how do you explain the "yet" while discussing when violence is an acceptable response to speech?

Please read my posts Redneck :-)

Said more than one time - in more than one post

I've also explained why I think the unlawful thing is sometimes the moral choice. In extreme situations - that haven't happened (wait for it...) : yet

Paint it however you like from here on out

Grambler

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 12:34 PM

link

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: TheRedneck

Your words indicate that you have a point where you believe that riots are justified to silence speakers.

Then you haven't been reading my posts. I've said the opposite many times in many posts. You're being disingenuous - fancy box - or no fancy box

Redneck "Your words indicate that you have a point where you believe that riots are justified to silence speakers. "

Thats is what you are saying you never siad, in fact said the opposite of.

Your quote from earlier.

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

So you said exactly what The Redneck said you did.

Then you not only deny, but claim you said the opposite of that.

I always love watching people that are so delusional that they deny the words they have typed, even when it is right out there for all to see.

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 12:38 PM

link

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I have read your posts... I have gone back and re-read your posts. They still say the same thing. Are you expecting the letters to rearrange themselves or something?

I've also explained why I think the unlawful thing is sometimes the moral choice. In extreme situations - that haven't happened (wait for it...) : yet

Again, I ask the question... if you are truly against using violence to combat speech, why do you keep insinuating that it may someday be acceptable by using the word "yet"?

Under what scenario could it ever be possible for violence to be acceptable to you in order to silence speech? Just answer that one question.

TheRedneck

Spiramirabilis

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 01:00 PM

link

a reply to: TheRedneck

Under what scenario could it ever be possible for violence to be acceptable to you in order to silence speech? Just answer that one question.

No - we're done

I've said several times that I see situations that might make violent protest the people's only real choice. You understand which kinds of situations I'm talking about. If you had actually read what I've been saying you would be embarrassed to ask again

Not to prevent free speech - that isn't worth it

Why can't you understand this? Or, why can't you let it go?

underpass61

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 01:17 PM

link

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I guess we're all just really dense and hoping for some clarification to help us understand you. I'm gonna try anyways:

By finishing your statement with the word yet, in bold, you are declaring that you see a tipping point to where violence is justified. Where, in your opinion, is that tipping point?

Spiramirabilis

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 01:37 PM

link

a reply to: underpass61

I guess we're all just really dense and hoping for some clarification to help us understand you. I'm gonna try anyways:

:-)

This has nothing to do with speakers or speech (as I've said several times)

I'm a pacifist. Violence is never acceptable - and yet. If society breaks down and we begin to do the unthinkable - and commit heinous crimes against the other (whoever that other might be) what recourse is left us?

I've thought about this my entire life underpass. I go back and forth - but in the end, unless peaceful resisters are organized and willing to sacrifice themselves, the only other alternative is self defense - and an offensive defense

I think about it a lot lately. Especially when people begin to put a muzzle on free speech. Ironically - while they think they're defending it

Thanks for not being a dick

Propagandalf

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 02:01 PM

link

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: underpass61

I guess we're all just really dense and hoping for some clarification to help us understand you. I'm gonna try anyways:

I'm a pacifist. Violence is never acceptable - and yet. If society breaks down and we begin to do the unthinkable - and commit heinous crimes against the other (whoever that other might be) what recourse is left us?

I've thought about this my entire life underpass. I go back and forth - but in the end, unless peaceful resisters are organized and willing to sacrifice themselves, the only other alternative is self defense - and an offensive defense

It's like when Gandhi appealed to the Brits to become pacifists.

"I hope you do not wish to enter into such an undignified competition with the Nazis. I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way, worthy of the bravest soldier. I want you to fight Nazism without arms, or, if I am to retain the military terminology, with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.."

It sounds nice and makes the person speaking it look nice, sure. But in retrospect I'm glad they didn't listen to his self-concerned message, and that good and brave men were willing to fight against evil.

Spiramirabilis

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 02:13 PM

link

a reply to: Propagandalf

It sounds nice and makes the person speaking it look nice, sure. But in retrospect I'm glad they didn't listen to his self-concerned message, and that good and brave men were willing to fight against evil.

Gandhi was shrewd - and human. Fallible. He's not wrong - but is he right? You can't make that kind of decision for a group. Only for yourself

I'm idealistic, often disappointed, but never naive. I know how bad bad can get, and it can happen anywhere

On the topic of free speech - we live in perilous times (she said over dramatically - maybe). Creating a situation where speech is meaningless and useless is the bigger problem now. Information doesn't help us anymore, and emotion seems to rule all of us

Propagandalf

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 02:27 PM

link

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Propagandalf

It sounds nice and makes the person speaking it look nice, sure. But in retrospect I'm glad they didn't listen to his self-concerned message, and that good and brave men were willing to fight against evil.

Gandhi was shrewd - and human. Fallible. He's not wrong - but is he right? You can't make that kind of decision for a group. Only for yourself

I'm idealistic, often disappointed, but never naive. I know how bad bad can get, and it can happen anywhere

On the topic of free speech - we live in perilous times (she said over dramatically - maybe). Creating a situation where speech is meaningless and useless is the bigger problem now. Information doesn't help us anymore, and emotion seems to rule all of us

I see it a little differently. Maybe I'm naively hopeful.

With the advent of social media, self-publishing, the internet, there has actually been an increase of speech rather than a decline. In that sense I think speech is becoming more free, with more people participating in the general discourse, more people sharing their opinions, more people expressing themselves.

I think that the acts of censorship we see nowadays are just the reactionary responses to this growing sense of freedom. Over time I believe that as soon as people realize censorship is unnecessary, and at any rate, makes them look foolish, they'll also come to realize the value and necessity of free speech.

OccamsRazor04

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 02:28 PM

link

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I agree that emotional decision making is dangerous it's why the Framers went to great lengths to put obstacles in place to ensure reason won out over emotional mob rule.

Spiramirabilis

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 02:54 PM

link

a reply to: Propagandalf

When the internet first happened - I felt the same way. I was in love with this universe - and how accessible it all was

Now that I see how free we are to be irrational here on ATS (and elsewhere) I wonder. The glut of opinions and information makes people lazy

It will be interesting to see how this all works out. In another 20 years when we can look back on it - it's still pretty new. Maybe we can't see all there is to see from where we sit right now

I'm hoping you're right

Spiramirabilis

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 02:56 PM

link

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes :-)

Proving that understanding human nature is key to our own survival

tabularosa

posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 03:35 PM

link

I'm all for free speech. But there is a fine line between expressing ideas and opinions and inciting violence. Few care for that, particularly when it is their life or property at risk.