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.

 

UC Berkeley must allow conservatives to speak on campus

page: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




You seem to have taken it to a new level. Instead of not being able to use others' property or attributes without permission, now one must overcome direct and intentional attempts to silence them. I can't agree with that. It is literally using free speech as an excuse to squelch free speech.


That's not what I said. That's what you wish I had said. Or, maybe what you need for me to say

Nobody is guaranteed a platform

Or do you disagree?




posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I sense a bigly amount of hypocrisy....

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

Think she would be allowed to speak?

free speech indeed....
edit on 4-12-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


What is your worry Redneck?

I think I have spelled it out quite clearly, but I will try again.

My concern is that people who think like you are literally using free speech to destroy free speech. The definition of "peaceful protest" is liquid and tenable. Thus, the loudest voice always wins, even if that voice is one among many, because it can be used to intimidate and thus infringe on the rights of others.

Of course, this is what happened in WWII Germany, WWII Japan, with Mussolini, under Soviet Communism, with the atrocities committed in Red China, and even with the constant warring between factions going on in Myanamar. It's happened throughout history. The Spanish Inquisition, for example. And still, you seem to think it is a good plan.

Beware: once you establish a precedent, it becomes hard to overturn it, even when it is used against you. Perhaps someday we can return to McCarthyism, where your words in this very thread would be considered sedition. I hope not... I wish you didn't either.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Just as the speakers have a right to say what they want to say. Nobody has a right to be heard. Nobody deserves to be guaranteed a platform

That's an interesting twist... but I guess that's to be expected from the conversation thus far.

When someone says I do not have a right to be heard, I always took that to mean I have no right to be invited to speak on a radio, or in a lecture hall, or on a TV show. I have the right to speak openly about any subject as long as I speak using my own abilities to speak. Those abilities might include my voice or an invitation to appear in media or a book I published myself or even a media outlet I own. I do not have the right to amplify my voice or my audience using someone else's property or abilities, thus the colloquial "no right to e heard."

You seem to have taken it to a new level. Instead of not being able to use others' property or attributes without permission, now one must overcome direct and intentional attempts to silence them. I can't agree with that. It is literally using free speech as an excuse to squelch free speech.

TheRedneck


One of the factors of the right to free speech is the right for others to hear what you have to say. Censorship is a double evil on that account. If someone heckles you, it not only your rights being infringed, but also the rights of those who came to listen.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

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"?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61




They certainly have the right to speak, Whether you listen or not is on you only and if you try and force me not to listen as well or impede my ability to hear there will be problems.


That's fair. One of the only sensible things I've heard anyone in this thread say so far

People have a right to speak. They have a right to a platform if they pay for it (in the Berkeley case), or if they have been invited. Or if they provide one for themselves (blogs - as one example)

So, what is a protest then? An inconvenience?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: jjkenobi
No No No you cannot allow the opposite view point to have any time to share their ideas and platforms. It might influence the indoctrination going on there!!


you're right, just look at how president Putin indoctrinated republicans....


Hmm interesting.

Do you suppose that Putin was also indoctrinating Billary, and thus Democrats, when they accepted all that money for speaking, the foundation, and U1?

Do you suppose that Putin had already indoctrinated Obama, and thus Democrats, by the time he told Medvedev (who would relay it to Vladimir) that he'll have more flexibility after the election?

I'm just trying to figure out where Putin indoctrination ends with Democrats and begins with Republicans.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

No, excuse me, but that is exactly what you said.

You stated that heckling is an acceptable form of protest. Heckling is using the loudest voices to silence the majority. You also stated that violence may become acceptable during protests. Your words are etched into the ATS database; disputing them only show more of your true colors.

At least have the backbone to own up to what you said.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Of course, this is what happened in WWII Germany, WWII Japan, with Mussolini, under Soviet Communism, with the atrocities committed in Red China, and even with the constant warring between factions going on in Myanamar. It's happened throughout history. The Spanish Inquisition, for example. And still, you seem to think it is a good plan.


Now you're just pulling things out of your back hole


It's interesting, in these threads - that it always comes down to this

Did you read my first post in this thread?

Let's imagine for a moment what happened to people that protested the Nazis. If only more had... Why did they wait so long?

What are these kids protesting Redneck?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   

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?

If you got something to say, spit it out!!
edit on 4-12-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   

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?


That is conflayting to issues.

When trump is speaking at a rally, that is his forum, and in order to have any kind of meaningful assembly, we must not allow hecklers to totally silence speakers when they have the forum, particularly on publicly financed dimes.

If this woman demdnded to be heard and sytarted screaming, she should be removed.

Not jailed, just removed.

If that women was called on campus to give a speech, and 50 republicans showed up, blocked the dorrs, and screamed the entire time she tried to speak, that too would be horrible and should not be allowed.

And so those people should be removed.

If we allow hecklers to censor any speaker they disagree with, public civility will be at an end, and violence is inevitable.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   
It’s a shame something so common sense had to be litigated. It used to be American to promote free speech now it is an extremist belief.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

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. Or simply disagreeing with trump.

Think she would be allowed to speak?

free speech indeed....


UC Berkeley is not a goddamned political rally, but, if you and others want to present it as such, then feel free to alter it from a publicly funded institution to a privately funded one. That, of course, means no more tax payer teats for them, same as political rallies.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Now you're just pulling things out of your back hole


Wow, you're saying your words came directly from another's backside. He's directly quoting you, and you're deflecting from your own words. Staggering!



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


No, excuse me, but that is exactly what you said.

You stated that heckling is an acceptable form of protest.


Is that exactly what I said?

Quote me

Then answer my question - after you do. If you can



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly what I am asking.

I have more respect for anyone, no matter how extreme their position, that is honest about it.

The constantly backtrack and try to be vague in an attempt to squirm around and not have to defend a position is terribly cowardly.

You ask me a question, such as should nambla be allowed to speak? Yep.

SHould hecklers be allowed to shut down speakers or classes? Nope.

Those that hide behind cliches when asked questions like this such as "I support peaceful protest" are doing so in an attempt to remain vague and be able to adjust their position to not be held accountable for their ideas.

As we now see, now suddenly that user is trying to claim they didnt mean hecklers had the right to shut speakers down when they said the supporter peaceful protests.

They act like their meaning was obvious, and its absurd people dont get it, all the while refusing to answer straight forward and shifting their argument over and over again.

You can see how someone like this would support hecklers and censroship.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Let's wait and see if he's directly quoting me :-)



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

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. Or simply disagreeing with trump.

Think she would be allowed to speak?

free speech indeed....


I am sure that someone has already responded to you, but seriously, you couldn't be more off the mark than you would ever dream. I think you are alright, I know the biz you are in, but you should take a secret trip to a Trump rally. There you would see first hand how wrong you are about your statement.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

He did and you waffled.




top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join