UC Berkeley must allow conservatives to speak on campus

a reply to: Grambler

I have brown shoes, too... well, black shoes with so much dirt on them they're brown. Does that count?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Propagandalf

They, like posters here and the students of berkley, had the upmost certainty they were morally superior.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

No you are right! In fact, will you join me in heckling these other white supremacists as well?

Hell yes, especially the pope or anyone else that dresses like a dork or wears brown shoes.

I have brown shoes!!!! NOOO!!!!!

How did I know that?

Production value is ok!! Cover that window and light from your left. Proper exposure even for a vlogster helps with credibility.

www.videomaker.com...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Propagandalf

That seems to be the issue. What is a 'peaceful protest'? To me, it is a group assembled peacefully holding signs and chanting slogans in a public, open arena with reasonable demands (a'la the Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage protests of yore). To others, it appears to include both open and enclosed areas, both private and public property, reasonable demands optional, with disregard to the rights of others and allowing for violence if someone feels it is 'morally needed.'

Seems to be two different definitions.

TheRedneck

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of protesting.

If they are not protesting an injustice, whether peaceful or not, they have taken to bullying and cruelty.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

What I said was very obvious. You can take it at face value

That's what worries me.

TheRedneck

Exactly.

However they define peaceful protest, it should be allowed.

So I guess that we can all protest all feminists classes, or any classes for that matter, scearm so nothing can be heard, and for the school to remove us would be removing peaceful protestors and violating our free speech.

That is what they are defending, yet they know its so silly that they cant force themselves to truely admit it.

a reply to: underpass61

Who decided that they are the ones who should be heard and their target suppressed? Why do they feel that they shoulder the responsibility to protect the public from someone else's words? What are they afraid of?

Why does it matter?

You don't have to like that they protest - you just need to recognize that they have the right. To peacefully protest

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

If the protests turn violent - that's on them. I imagine most of them know that going in

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

No you are right! In fact, will you join me in heckling these other white supremacists as well?

Hell yes, especially the pope or anyone else that dresses like a dork or wears brown shoes.

I have brown shoes!!!! NOOO!!!!!

How did I know that?

Production value is ok!! Cover that window and light from your left. Proper exposure even for a vlogster helps with credibility.

Yeah i am at work.

My home videos are better.

But I do thank you for the advice sincerely.

Hopefully I will have some lefty socialists on with me soon that you will agree with more

Honestly though they are very intelligent and my friends, and I think it will be a good discussion.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah? What is your worry Redneck?

Spell it out - if you're up for it :-)

a reply to: Propagandalf

If they are not protesting an injustice, whether peaceful or not, they have taken to bullying and cruelty.

How incredibly PC of you

I think what is meant by peaceful protest is easy to define. It's any protest that does not include violence or does not interfere with others rights.

Blocking access to or exit from a building is not peaceful protest.

Blocking a sidewalk or a street is not peaceful protest.

Preventing a speaker from speaking or being heard is not peaceful protest.

In all those cases it's denying others rights, which can never be called peaceful. In fact, to believe it is means a person believes their rights are superior to others rights. It's saying get to the back of the bus, only we deserve to speak, enter, exit or use the streets and sidewalks.

What's been going on at Berkeley is the opposite of peaceful protest and since those in charge have been complicit, it's organized bigotry with the blessing of an institution that gets government funds. The only thing missing are the white robes. Just like the KKK the worst of these bigots hide their faces. There is a reason they feel the need to hide their faces.

Heckling speakers is the same as silencing speech and to suggest otherwise is well, absurd. Any authority that allows it to happen is complicit.

a reply to: Grambler

Hopefully I will have some lefty socialists on with me soon that you will agree with more Honestly though they are very intelligent and my friends, and I think it will be a good discussion.

Don't be such a sensitive twerp. I agree with you plenty.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Propagandalf

If they are not protesting an injustice, whether peaceful or not, they have taken to bullying and cruelty.

How incredibly PC of you

Not really. I'm speaking of real justice, not that social justice piffle.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

Hopefully I will have some lefty socialists on with me soon that you will agree with more Honestly though they are very intelligent and my friends, and I think it will be a good discussion.

Don't be such a sensitive twerp. I agree with you plenty.

Sensitive twerp?

Sure I am sensitive, but I prefer oaf.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: underpass61

Who decided that they are the ones who should be heard and their target suppressed? Why do they feel that they shoulder the responsibility to protect the public from someone else's words? What are they afraid of?

Nobody has a right to be heard.

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.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Excellent post.

That is why you ask people specifics about what they mean by peaceful protest.

Sure that sounds great, who isnt for peaceful protest?

But what all is entailed within that.

Some people like me agree with you here.

Others think that ubntil punches are thrown or things like that, then its a peaceful protest. I strongly disagree with this.

People actually interested in having a serious discussion would have no problem defining exactly what types of protest is defined as peaceful and should be allowed.

hence, is shouting down speakers so they cant be heard allowed? Is blocking access to venues allowed?

A refusal to answer these while falling back on cliches such as "I support peaceful protest" proves an inetent to be vague, and is uses as an excuse for censorship.

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

a reply to: Propagandalf

Still PC

Propaganda Elf

originally posted by: tinner07
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....

The problem most libs have here is they can't get someone barred easily. They have to defend their view and have it reviewed and fact checked the same as anyone else. Go to a lib site and say something negative about Bernie and see if you can defend your point or you just get barred.


Many give up and don't come back. This site could sway to the left if enough people were here defending their point of view. Time will tell

originally posted by: TonyS

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...

We left in 1910. Not too many years later, we got the news that everyone was dead. The people that scolded my family for selling our farm and home near the Euphrates river just below mount Ararat, were all dead. It deeply saddened our family. My great grandfathers moms uncle was minister of finance in Turkey. He stayed behind, but was killed in a horse back riding accident. He was like royalty there. The last arrainged marriage in our family was in the late 1890s

originally posted by: Blaine91555


It's pretty much Popper's paradox of tolerance.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.