UC Berkeley must allow conservatives to speak on campus

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: TonyS

If Jews could have spoken out early enough I strongly believe that either the Holocaust could have been prevented or at least the US may have entered the war sooner.

So speaking out is important even if sometimes it seems ineffective..

If the world had stepped in to stop the genocide and Halocaust of my people, the Armenians, the Jews might have been spared.

Hitler stated " the world did nothing about the Armenians, surely they wont do anything about the Jews

I honestly didn't know that
If I recall correctly, even to this day do the Turks deny the genocide of the Armenians.
I occurred between 1914~1923. The time of the "Old World Order" of Monarch's and Empires.
en.wikipedia.org...

I guess.............it would have been incumbent upon the Russians, the Germans or the British to intervene on behalf of the Armenians. Of course..........the Czar was killed in 1917/18, the German Kaiser abdicated at the end of WWI leaving only the Brits and perhaps the French to intervene on the part of the Armenians. Logistically speaking I'd have thought only the Russians would have been close enough to have intervened. And ultimately they did when the 11th Army of the Soviet Armed forces took control of Armenia in 1920.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: muzzleflash

That's an interesting observation although a bit off the mark in that the Jews were living in Germany at the time.

I rather doubt any conservatives live in Berkley so who's the leftists going to hurt there?

a reply to: TonyS

This problem extends far beyond Berkley.

We have Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc censoring people they don't agree with right now.

It's bigger than America even, this trend threatens the whole of modern civilization.

The battle over free speech has just begun. This will be an "issue" for centuries moving foward because people say stuff and get offended. That will not change.

And even if some ppl learn from all this and grow, we will still always have trolls and normal people with scary opinions.

a reply to: 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!!

Pretty much like this website these days....Anything anti-Trump/republican gets shouted down by the trumpets and the OP ridiculed....

Yeah if the Secular Liberal Nihilist religion was allowed to be publicly debated it would be destroyed overnight. Their main defense is a self-perceived Moral elitism, oddly mixed with moral ambiguity. A chauvinism that allows no dissenting opinion to even be considered. They're teaching our kids that we're the offspring of mutant monkeys, among other deranged perversions. I was indoctrinated by this secular liberal nihilist religion from 8th grade to my sophomore year of college, thankfully I pursued knowledge on my own accord and found a trail of actual truth.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Moral is not legal.

Then you miss my point completely

That includes blocking access, and it includes heckling. Both are borderline violence and both intrude on the right of the speaker to speak

Borderline violence? Oh my...

It sounds like you are trying to claim a right to riot if things don't go your way.

I suggest you (and Grambler) read my posts

a reply to: Grambler

Again you have not answered the question, I dont know if you are missing it or not.

If you just need a place to talk - then keep posting. You can address them to me if you need some place to place your opinion. I can only say the same thing so many times. You are either being deliberately obtuse - or there's nothing more I can say that is going to reach you

I've said what I meant to say. In good faith

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Yes. Free speech. Speakers better speak up.

:-)

Heckling is a form of violence now

Snowflakes

a reply to: Sublimecraft

'consequential effect' - no laws can stop that train - none.

Exactly right Sublime. If you had bothered to read what I said, you would understand it not just from your partisan point of view, but from a more humanistic point of view

You mean to lecture me on something I already said. More or less

a reply to: underpass61

What are you even talking about? I was replying to Grambler, not making a statement about what I would do. We were dealing in hypotheticals

I begin to see where the problem is :-)

a reply to: network dude

At least now, these kids will know that if someone they don't like says something, they will have to find a way to deal with it. Which is the life lesson I mentioned earlier. it's a really important one, and transcends college.

No - they will probably continue protesting. Now the University is obliged to keep the event open regardless. What happens next is anybody's guess

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

Again you have not answered the question, I dont know if you are missing it or not.

If you just need a place to talk - then keep posting. You can address them to me if you need some place to bounce your opinion off, but can only say the same thing so many times. You are either being deliberately obtuse - or there's nothing more I can say that is going to reach you

I've said what I meant to say. In good faith

Show me where you answered if people can shut down a speaker by heckling.

You keep saying you clearly answered, I honestly havent seen it.

If you can show me, I will fully apologize.

It amazing that two people can be so sure of what was said and have totally different conclusions.

I asked you this over and over. This was your quote that I saw that was the closet to answering it.

If somebody feels strongly enough about a class that's being taught - should that person or persons have the right to shut down that class?

I don't know - are they protesting peacefully? Are they trespassing? Are they breaking the law?

What have I said about any of this so far? Is it possible you don't want to understand me - on purpose? I think this is the case

I believe in the rights of the conscientious objector. This includes people who protest abortion - even though I personally am absolutely pro choice

Does this make it any clearer for you?

That is not an answer to the question. That is you asking questions in response to the question, then saying you believe the rights of the conscientious objector, without ever explaining if you think heckler should have the right to shout down classrooms or speakers.

Yet despite your vagueness, you act indignant that I dont get what you are saying.

Another user asked me if Nambla should ba allowed to speak.

I saiod "Yes"

I could have said "Are they illegal? Are they tresspassing?"

And then got indignant that that poster didnt get a clear answer.

I get it, you are doing everything possible to avoid coming out and saying yes, you feel its perfectly acceptable for a protestor to scream during any event, or one to scream during any class, ensuring no one can hear any of those speakers.

You avoid this because you know its an absurd positions and you cant defend it, so you vaguely allude to it.

Thats ok, the tactic of being obtuse because you kno0w your position can not hold up to scrutinty is familiar ti me. Very similar to the very berkely students we are discussing, so I understand you sympathy for them.

a reply to: Grambler

Show me where you answered if people can shut down a speaker by heckling.

I am not debating you - and I don't owe you an answer to this or any of your other repetitive questions

What I said is people have a right to protest. Peacefully

Why are you babbling about heckling?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The problem is when you have one group of people who decide that they know what the rest of the public should be allowed to hear, because they can't be trusted to think for themselves. That's all the justification they need to block access, heckle, and harass another citizen.
I personally have never felt compelled to control another person's thoughts or actions, it makes me wonder why anyone would feel obligated to.

a reply to: Grambler

I'm sorry, I would heckle yiannopoulos unmercifully for giving that white power salute... do you approve of it, bob?



play stupid games, win stupid prizes, dork

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

Show me where you answered if people can shut down a speaker by heckling.

I am not debating you - and I don't owe you an answer to this or any of your other repetitive questions

What I said is people have a right to protest. Peacefully

Why are you babbling about heckling?

Sorry to jump in but have become curious during the back and forth in this thread. Is heckling considered peaceful protesting or not?

a reply to: underpass61

I personally have never felt compelled to control another person's thoughts or actions, it makes me wonder why anyone would feel obligated to.

Then what's your beef with the protesters?

a reply to: CynConcepts

Why are you asking me?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

Show me where you answered if people can shut down a speaker by heckling.

I am not debating you - and I don't owe you an answer to this or any of your other repetitive questions

What I said is people have a right to protest. Peacefully

Why are you babbling about heckling?

Cool so you admit you never answered and dont intend to.

So stop pretending you answered clearly.

Again, you are being vague in saying they shouild be allowed to protest.

yes we get that, no one at all is disputing that.

We are discussing tactics involved in protesting and whether or not they are over the line.

You did that as well. You say violence ia over the line. I agree.

You say breaking the law by pulling fire alarms is over the line. I agree.

Yet you then say people dont really believe in free speech and are insisting protestors be polite when referencing other situations, and then when asked directly about more situations, lie and say you have answered them, only to then say you havent and owe no one an answer.

Thats fine, good for you.

In fact my first post to you listed four things

That doesnt include using violence, pulling fire alarms, blocking people from entering the event, heckling during the event, etc, which is what we see.

Despite me not being hostile to you at all, you accused that post of picking a fight with you.

If you chose to be vague thats totally cool.

I probably wouldnt want to announce to people I am for hecklers censoring people I disagree with either.

a reply to: Grambler

So stop pretending you answered clearly.

Why are you being so needy?

I have answered - you just don't like my answer. It's too succinct