UC Berkeley must allow conservatives to speak on campus

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: burdman30ott6

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

No we know your game.

You simply said no one has the rigbht to be hegard, and that you support the right to peaceful protest so its clear what you mean when asked if heckelers should be allowed tyo shut people down.

Then when everyone with any reason assumes that means ok, you are syaing becvause the hecklers arent violent, and because the soeaker does not have the right to be heard, that means you support the hecklers right to shut down speakers.

Then you say oh no, thats not at all what you meant.

Provoing as I have said this whole thread, you seek only to be vague and obsfucate your position because you know you cant defend it.

Will you clearly asnwer the questiopn yet, or again continue to be vague.

Should hecklers be allowed to shout and scream so speakers or teachers cant be heard?

Stop acting like other people interpreting your vague answers in the most common sense way are somehow doing you an injustice.

You had the choice to clearly state your opinion, but chose not to.

The reason is you know you cant defend it, which is why you are now backing down saying you dont support the rights for some to silence others.

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.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

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

How is this me saying people deserve to be heckled?

What I said is that nobody is guaranteed a platform. Do you believe that people should be guaranteed the right to speak - anywhere - any time?

I know that this is how Redneck argues

Is this how you argue? Really?

Taking it one step further - do you believe people should be protected from heckling?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: burdman30ott6



Taking it one step further - do you believe people should be protected from heckling?

nvm

a reply to: Grambler

You simply said no one has the rigbht to be hegard, and that you support the right to peaceful protest so its clear what you mean when asked if heckelers should be allowed tyo shut people down.

What I said is that I believe people have the right to peaceful protest

I don't believe anyone should be guaranteed a platform

Do you disagree with this?

ETA the entire quote:

No we know your game.

You simply said no one has the rigbht to be hegard, and that you support the right to peaceful protest so its clear what you mean when asked if heckelers should be allowed tyo shut people down.

Then when everyone with any reason assumes that means ok, you are syaing becvause the hecklers arent violent, and because the soeaker does not have the right to be heard, that means you support the hecklers right to shut down speakers.

Then you say oh no, thats not at all what you meant.

Provoing as I have said this whole thread, you seek only to be vague and obsfucate your position because you know you cant defend it.

Will you clearly asnwer the questiopn yet, or again continue to be vague.

Should hecklers be allowed to shout and scream so speakers or teachers cant be heard?

Stop acting like other people interpreting your vague answers in the most common sense way are somehow doing you an injustice.

You had the choice to clearly state your opinion, but chose not to.

The reason is you know you cant defend it, which is why you are now backing down saying you dont support the rights for some to silence others.

If you wonder why I don't engage more often - it's because you aren't honorable. Play nice - or don't bother

a reply to: Grambler

I believe in the right to peaceful protest.

Why dont you?

See how you are?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Let me ask you this - A conservative speaks at Berkeley and protests ensue. Then a liberal speaks (which happens regularly) - I'm sure you would agree that conservatives would have the same right to protest. 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.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

You simply said no one has the rigbht to be hegard, and that you support the right to peaceful protest so its clear what you mean when asked if heckelers should be allowed tyo shut people down.

What I said is that I believe people have the right to peaceful protest

I don't believe anyone should be guaranteed a platform

Do you disagree with this?

First I will answer your question, because I enjoy being honest and upfront with peoplke when discussing ideas instead of hiding behind vague cliches.

No, no one should be guaranteed a platform.

How is this in any way relevant to this discussion?

Those that have paid for a platform, or had been invited to a platform and had others pay to see them have the right to use that platform, and those that went to that event have the right to hear that speaker.

hecklers shouting and refusing to allow the speaker to speak or the audience to hear them take away those rights, and they should be removed.

We were discussing hecklers shutting donw speakers. Your response was you support the right to peaceful prtest, and that no one has the right to be heard.

Are you now claiming that this statement was not you defending the rights of the hecklers to shout down speakers?

Now you are having to go back and argue that this most logical extrapolation of hwat you said, seeiing as how it was in response to hecklers shutting down speakers, is not actually what you meant.

Then again, for about the fifth time, I will ask, are you for allowing hecklers to shout so loud that speakers and teachers cant be heard?

The fact that you refuse to answer this again shows you are noit interested in a srious discussion

If you wonder why I don't engage more often - it's because you aren't honorable. Play nice - or don't bother

I am honorable. I respond to questions presented to me clearly, and admit when I change my mind.

You are intentionally vague, and then squirm when your argument is shown to be a bad one.

Funny how so many people, at least three have point blank asked you what you feel about hecklers like mentioned above, or understood what you nmeant to be a defense of those hecklers, and yet it must be all of us that have the problem, not you.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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.

I would tweak this only slightly to say using the loudest voices to silence whomever has the floor, since we are all equals.

Much respect, Mr. Redneck

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.

I grew up there... there have been dumb ass Indians like Gordon House, dumb ass Mexicans like Charles Truxillo, and dumb ass blacks like Charles Becknell. Every culture has it's dumb asses and the fact that you limit your considerations to "crackers" speaks volumes.

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.

Some would. You start talking 2nd amendment rights and it's a whole nuther story

Listen - as long as you're willing to have an actual conversation - I'm up for it

Berkeley has a reputation. Of protest. Against real sh!t

I said earlier that I understand why these students today are protesting. Me understanding why they protest is not the same thing as me believing they should

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

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Taking it one step further - do you believe people should be protected from heckling?

No, but I also don't believe hecklers should be protected from consequences which may include getting their asses beat down if they're dumb enough to heckle someone in the midst of a crowd of their target's supporters. Speech has consequences, ya?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

I believe in the right to peaceful protest.

Why dont you?

See how you are?

Oh was that quote annoyingly vague and worthless?

I agree.

admittedly, it was childish of me to act like you there, even if it was to show how disingenuous you are, and for that I apologize.

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.

from Grambler: Should protestors be allowed to heckle speakers so that they may not speak and people cant hear them?

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

Yes. Free speech. Speakers better speak up.

no.
standing outside in a public area with sign or chant is perfectly acceptable.
inside a facility that has been assigned / rented for a particular speaker or speakers, it is not morally acceptable to disrupt.
not talking about little comments among friends, but shouts and chants (like Code Pink).
those aren't expressions of free speech, those are suppression of free speech.
what could be more fascistic than shouting down an opposing speaker?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: underpass61



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

Hahahahaha!

You violent unethical censor!

Of course, when you decide to riot to censor someone, it will be just! Now those other people, they dont have your moral superiority!

Please go on, this is the most fun I have had on ats in a long time.

An advocate for violent censorship trying to be vague to get out of their defense of hecklers shutting down speech!

I hope that no one ever acts under your ideology towards you, and determines violent riots are justified to shut you down because they morally are better than you to make that judgement.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

No, but I also don't believe hecklers should be protected from consequences which may include getting their asses beat down if they're dumb enough to heckle someone in the midst of a crowd of their target's supporters. Speech has consequences, ya?

Always with the violence Burd. Always - with the violence

But hecklers? They are the real problem

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Always with the violence Burd. Always - with the violence

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.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: burdman30ott6

No, but I also don't believe hecklers should be protected from consequences which may include getting their asses beat down if they're dumb enough to heckle someone in the midst of a crowd of their target's supporters. Speech has consequences, ya?

Always with the violence Burd. Always - with the violence

But hecklers? They are the real problem

Who are you to criticize violence?

You just said violent riots may be necessary in the future.

Its bad enough you are a violent advocate for censorship, must you now add hypocrite to your repertoire?

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 we're talking about protest - I'm pretty sure they know what to expect