• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Milo Yiannopoulos's UC Berkeley speech cancelled due to protests, campus on lockdown

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StrategyFan

Member
6 days ago, UC gave some explanation why they let him speak (http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-yiannopoulos/)

First, from a legal perspective, the U.S. Constitution prohibits UC Berkeley, as a public institution, from banning expression based on its content or viewpoints, even when those viewpoints are hateful or discriminatory. Longstanding campus policy permits registered student organizations to invite speakers to campus and to make free use of meeting space in the Student Union for that purpose. As mentioned, the BCR is the host of this event, and therefore it is only they who have the authority to disinvite Mr. Yiannopoulos. Consistent with the dictates of the First Amendment as uniformly and decisively interpreted by the courts, the university cannot censor or prohibit events, or charge differential fees. Some have asked us whether attacks on individuals are also protected. In fact, critical statements and even the demeaning ridicule of individuals are largely protected by the Constitution; in this case, Yiannopoulos’s past words and deeds do not justify prior restraint on his freedom of expression or the cancellation of the event.
Click to expand...

it makes Trump's tweet seem even more out of touch with reality
 
T

Tuck

Member
Badabing said:
But like it or not, this protest to suppress speech screams fascism more than anything "college Republicans" stand for (though I don't know anything about this particular college Republican group). Maybe you don't agree with their point of view but much of today's right wing agenda is nothing new in American society - in fact the tone is less conservative these days than it was even just 10 years ago.

Icing on the cake is that this guy was invited. This could have been avoided if students found a compromise with formal discourse.

But no, they needed to stop free speech entirely. Seems kinda fascist to me. (Edit: authoritarian)
Click to expand...

free_speech.png
 
mario_O

mario_O

Member
Badabing said:
But like it or not, this protest to suppress speech screams fascism more than anything "college Republicans" stand for (though I don't know anything about this particular college Republican group). Maybe you don't agree with their point of view but much of today's right wing agenda is nothing new in American society - in fact the tone is less conservative these days than it was even just 10 years ago.

Icing on the cake is that this guy was invited. This could have been avoided if students found a compromise with formal discourse.

But no, they needed to stop free speech entirely. Seems kinda fascist to me. (Edit: authoritarian)
Click to expand...

I dont see it as freedom of speech when it's a hate speech towards everything except white american people.
 
F

FunkyMonk

Member
Badabing said:
Icing on the cake is that this guy was invited. This could have been avoided if students found a compromise with formal discourse.

But no, they needed to stop free speech entirely. Seems kinda fascist to me. (Edit: authoritarian)
Click to expand...

This individual uses his free speech to target people. At one of his recent speeches he outed a transgender student, mocked them and lbasically printed a target on them for his troglodyte followers.

He was thrown off twitter for knowingly spreading fake tweets from Leslie Jones to incite his followers to dog pile her. He regularly used to sick his followers on anyone who took his eye and you think you can have a formal discourse with him?
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I would hope this election had finally taught us that there are consequences to hate speech beyond the "expression of ideas"

Fucking hell
 
F

Foffy

Banned
Psycho_Mantis said:
I have to say I agree with UCLU's stance on free speech with regards to hate speech. Reacting with violence will only cause more violence and have the other side act like they have some moral high ground, further justifying their stance.

Best way would be to react with speech.
Click to expand...

The problem here, unfortunately, is allowing a sense of respectability and "let the idiot say his peace and we all point and laugh at how fucking stupid it is" got us Donald Trump.

If you normalize it with the openness to speak, you normalize what is being spoke. Worse still, if you are violent about it, all you do is create sympathizers and thus normalize it that way.

This is how the alt-right has been growing. Their ideas are dogshit and the literal definition of nonsense, but if you give it room to be heard, people will buy it. If you give it a fist, people will become sympathetic to who is speaking and being hit. Highlighting the inhumanity being articulated humanizes it, which is the oddest paradox.

If we were a reasonable society or even, arguably, a reasonable species, this shit would die the moment these fools had a microphone near their lips. But that's clearly not happening...
 
P

Psycho_Mantis

Banned
Screaming Meat said:
By putting it on an equal footing; by entertaining it as a genuine and meaningful political viewpoint. It's not.

To be clear, I'm not advocating the violence at Berkeley (though I'm for Nazis getting the occasional punch in the face and getting shouted down). I don't think extremists can (or indeed deserve to) be logically debated; y'know, since their ideology isn't based on logic and founded on the extermination of other people. How can you meaningfully debate that?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The validity, accuracy and morality of opinions are not somehow placed on equal footing by just voicing them. That notion is absurd.

Allowing them to speak is not saying any one of those things: those are extrapolations at best that can be easily countered by speech. In fact speech would be a far more effective tool in contesting their views and calming your fear of these views becoming a meaningful political viewpoint than violence.

Well its not much of debate, as most will denounce acts of extermination. But thats an extremity. This is not their only point and I highly doubt its their most wide spreading thought as well.
 
Q

quesalupa

Member
Dehnus said:
Sigh, this is exactly what he wanted. He'll milk this into oblivion and his fanbase will run with it, using the pictures to generated fake news for months.

It was best to let him speak and just organise something that would boycot the entire event. So at most the "Campus republicans" would show up. Empty room otherwise. Then not even give him any attention and even ask local Media not to interview him.

Don't let the bugger goad you into a reaction. He's simply not worth your effort.
Click to expand...
Man these facists are coming at us hard and fast. The last thing we need to do is lay down quietly. Even if it is what they want to escalate the situation, it's still better for us to get organized sooner than later.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Psycho_Mantis said:
I have to say I agree with UCLU's stance on free speech with regards to hate speech. Reacting with violence will only cause more violence and have the other side act like they have some moral high ground, further justifying their stance.

Best way would be to react with speech.
Click to expand...

I personally drew the line at violence prior to this election. I was in for protests and disruptions but i didn't want to get hurt

I now see what many other people were trying to tell me: not only do these people not engage in any sort of good faith, which I knew, but acting like they do actively contributes to the normalization of very dangerous ideas that will lead to real tangible harm

Punch white supremacists
 
L

Lime

Member
TBiddy said:
What the fuck? How the hell did you manage to conclude, that I'm a "nazi defender"? I mean, jesus.
Click to expand...

When you're saying that this bigoted shitstain deserves and should have a platform to spread his hateful bile and embolden neo-nazis even more, then you're defending him. Austin Walker said it best:

austinrgjq1.jpg


So instead of spending time and energy trying to defend a nazi and his ability to spread his bullshit, help out the groups and people who are suffering from the shit that him and his group are spewing.
 
M

MechaX

Member
NyMartin90 said:
Both sides need to compromise. Labeling people on either side sparks further conflict and division.
Click to expand...

If one side is spouting Nazi-esque hate rhetoric, then there should be conflict and division.

For one side of this debate, there will never be any sense of compromise, but only sacrifice.
 
P

platocplx

Member
NyMartin90 said:
Both sides need to compromise. Labeling people on either side sparks further conflict and division.
Click to expand...

There is no way I'm compromising with a fucking racist, a bigot, or a fucking nazi. Cut the the bullshit. With the both sides nonsense. One side is actively looking to either remove freedoms or out right want to exterminate people. Get off your high horse.
 
N

NyMartin90

Member
I'm just hoping there will be a peaceful solution. Peaceful protest is great I encourage that I just hope there isn't violence. Sorry if I offended people
 
RowdyReverb

RowdyReverb

Member
Lime said:
When you're saying that this bigoted shitstain deserves and should have a platform to spread his hateful bile and embolden neo-nazis even more, then you're defending him. Austin Walker said it best:

austinrgjq1.jpg


So instead of spending time and energy trying to defend a nazi and his ability to spread his bullshit, help out the groups and people who are suffering from the shit that him and his group are spewing.
Click to expand...
Is this speaker really advocating for genocide?
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Psycho_Mantis said:
No it doesn't. The validity, accuracy and morality of opinions are not somehow placed on equal footing by just voicing them. That notion is absurd.

Allowing them to speak is not saying any one of those things: those are extrapolations at best that can be easily countered by speech. In fact speech would be a far more effective tool in contesting their views and calming your fear of these views becoming a meaningful political viewpoint than violence.

Well its not much of debate, as most will denounce acts of extermination. But thats an extremity. This is not their only point and I highly doubt its their most wide spreading thought as well.
Click to expand...
its the year 2017. How much more evidence do you need that this is actively false? Like "the president is Donald Trump, who ran on a platform of barely concealed white supremacy orchestrated by Steve Bannon" actively false?

All the debates in the world didn't do shit
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
RowdyReverb said:
Is this speaker really advocating for genocide?
Click to expand...
Milo is aligned with Breitbart and by extension Bannon and by extension white supremacy, the alt right, and ethnic cleansing in general. Regardless of if Milo is on record himself in support of ethnic cleansing, he is enthusiastically friends with the pro-genocide crowd
 
S

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Psycho_Mantis said:
No it doesn't. The validity, accuracy and morality of opinions are not somehow placed on equal footing by just voicing them. That notion is absurd.
Click to expand...

I didn't say by "voicing" them, I said by debating them.

A debate is a formal discussion between two opposing positions. For a debate to occur, both positions need to be considered dispassionately as equal, with the actual discussion putting forward arguments and points to explain why one position works and the other doesn't. If they aren't equal, its not a debate.

That is putting them on an equal footing.

Psycho_Mantis said:
In fact speech would be a far more effective tool in contesting their views and calming your fear of these views becoming a meaningful political viewpoint than violence.
Click to expand...

By engaging hate speech in legitimate debate - by normalising fucking Nazis - that's the point when my fears have already come true.
 
X

xRaizen

Member
Just watched some videos of the riots.

Just wow.

Using physical violence against anyone is sickening. Don't care who you are or what you stand for, if you feel the need to physically assault someone over their beliefs then there's something wrong with you.
 
S

SyenceLabb

Member
The Technomancer said:
Milo is aligned with Breitbart and by extension Bannon and by extension white supremacy, the alt right, and ethnic cleansing in general. Regardless of if Milo is on record himself in support of ethnic cleansing, he is enthusiastically friends with the pro-genocide crowd
Click to expand...

That's a lot of dots you're connecting there. lol
 
N

NoblesseOblige

Banned
NyMartin90 said:
I'm just hoping there will be a peaceful solution. Peaceful protest is great I encourage that I just hope there isn't violence. Sorry if I offended people
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what peaceful resolution you were hoping for when one side seeks to strip the rights of those who are not straight, or white, or cis, etc.
 
A

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
If you have a problem with Milo, take the anger out on him and his ilk.

Getting bystanders involved is only going to encourage more police presence and future incidents of abuse at future events.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

UC Berkeley panel blames conservative students for left wing violence on campus
19
3K
Dontero replied
Alt Right Combo meal: Bannon, Milo, Coulter to speak at "Free Speech" at UC Berkeley
2 3 4
174
19K
cromofo replied
  • Locked
Milo Yiannopoulos planned to 'publicy name undocumented students' in cancelled talk
2 3 4
179
22K
ModBot replied
Milo Yiannopoulos' "Free Speech Week" At Berkeley Falls Apart, Organizers Say
2
74
15K
Rootbeer replied
  • Locked
Do not condone violence to suppress free speech
2 3
117
10K
ModBot replied
Top Bottom