• 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.
V

victreeb3l

Member
For NY Gaffers, there's a Nazi punching film festival going down in Brooklyn on Feb 4:

Organized by Brooklyn’s The New Inquiry, the 90-minute Fash Bash Bash will feature numerous film clips of National Socialists getting some chin music in the kisser. You can expect plenty of the usual cinematic suspects—Indiana Jones and Inglourious Basterds, for instance—but the event also promises more esoteric or archaic footage for the Hitler-hating film snobs in the audience. The festival is scheduled for this Saturday, February 4 in Brooklyn. Punch, apparently, will be served.
Click to expand...

http://www.avclub.com/article/theres-nazi-punching-film-festival-going-down-broo-249541
 
L

Lime

Member
@marrec: https://youtu.be/R2BIZy0HScM?t=100

Because of the way this society's organized, because of the violence that exists on the surface everywhere. You have to expect that there are going to be such explosions. You have to expect things like that as reactions. If you... if a black person lives in the black community all your life and walks out on the street everyday seeing white policemen surrounding you...

I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama. Some very good friends of mine were killed by bombs, bombs that were planted by racists. I remember from the time I was very small, I remember the sounds of bombs exploding across the street, our house shaking. I remember my father having to have guns at his disposal at all times because of the fact that at any moment someone... we might expect to be attacked.

The... man who was at that time in complete control of the city government... would often get on the radio and make statements like: ”Niggers have moved into a white neighborhood. We better expect some bloodshed tonight." And, sure enough, there would be bloodshed.

...

In fact, when the bombing occurred one of the mothers of one of the young girls called my mother and said, ”Can you take me down to the church to pick up Carol. We heard about the bombing and I don't have my car." And they went down and what did they find? They found limbs and heads strewn all over the place.

And then after that, in my neighborhood all of the men organized themselves into an armed patrol. They had to take their guns and patrol our community every night because they did not want that to happen again.

I mean, that's why when someone asks me about violence, I just.... I just find it incredible. Because what it means is that the person asking that question has no idea what black people have gone through... what black people have experienced in this country since the time the first black person was kidnapped from the shores of Africa.
Click to expand...
 
C

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
O

OniBarubary

Banned
I didn't expand on it because I have somewhat odd viewpoints that run further than the facts or truths I stated with regards to morality or whatnot. I don't want to muddy the conversation with my personal views or morality (or lack thereof), nor get probably banned to be honest.

I will double down though and say that no, I do not believe violence is inherently wrong or bad. The morality comes from culture (which includes religion) and the reasons I posted above, not from any inherent wrong or right but whatever a culture has dictated it is in it's best interests to have. People decided killing was bad because if everybody just ran around killing people it would be detrimental to the society they constructed; not because they saw killing as a bad thing they must never do but that the consequences of unfettered killing or violence upended the beneficial situation they had created for themselves. That doesn't mean that within such a society or situation violence is always wrong, just that imposing that morality on those within it worked in the favor of those who wanted to keep that society a certain way.

Saying violence is inherently wrong or evil works completely in with what I said above about being a method of control by controlling the message. By saying it's always wrong and that they only use it when it is necessary and hate to do so they can continue to utilize it as a tool while making it unattractive to others and continue whatever agenda/purpose they have.

So no, I do not believe that violence is inherently wrong on some metaphysical fundamental level. It's wrong because people decided it was wrong when they needed it to be controlled.
 
K

KoopaTheCasual

Junior Member
therealist said:
Let him speak, let him say "good morning" if at any point in time his speech veers into hate, shut him down immediately and turn off his mic.
Click to expand...
This would actually be worse, because the internet's infatuation for the word "censorship" will get its full. It's better and less consequential to just not offer him a platform on the merit of his looooooong history of hate speech.
 
S

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
everyday math said:
When people hate against riots it's always the same excuses. It only makes people sympathize with them etc.

Some riots that gave positive changes to America
The Stonewall riots
King assassination riots
The Ferguson riots
The LA riots
The Kent state riots
Let's go really far back to the fucking "The Stamp Act riots of 1765" and you know what that started rolling the ball on right?

These are just a few more of the higher profile ones, but there's dozens more out there.
Click to expand...

Huh. That's interesting. Didn't even think of it like that.
 
T

tuxfool

Banned
sc0la said:
I said gawd dayumn CNN being accurate for once with their breaking news headline
kjMh4Tw.jpg

Too bad the story headline it links to is soft bullshit

Edit: heh they updated the headline before I screen grabbed. At first it was about a whites only scholarship.
Click to expand...

lol.
 
P

PopeReal

Member
And the special snowflakes are the whiny little bitches who go on and on about free speech even though their tiny brains can't grasp what it actually means.

"You don't tolerate hatred, that makes you the bigot! Herp derp rinse repeat."
 
M

marrec

Banned
Lime said:
@marrec: https://youtu.be/R2BIZy0HScM?t=100
Click to expand...

Clearly my navel gazing is unnecessary :lol

It is worthy to remember that no matter how much we try and get the white moderate to empathize, some are going to find it troubling when we meet violence with violence. Even I want to categorize the "good" responses from the "bad" responses in order to maintain a virtuous position come whatever judgement day.

Maybe like violence itself, the "victims" of violence run on a spectrum, where someone like Spencer deserves no sympathy or second thought, and someone like Milo deserves only little more.

OniBarubary said:
I didn't expand on it because I have somewhat odd viewpoints that run further than the facts or truths I stated with regards to morality or whatnot. I don't want to muddy the conversation with my personal views or morality (or lack thereof), nor get probably banned to be honest.

I will double down though and say that no, I do not believe violence is inherently wrong or bad. The morality comes from culture (which includes religion) and the reasons I posted above, not from any inherent wrong or right but whatever a culture has dictated it is in it's best interests to have. People decided killing was bad because if everybody just ran around killing people it would be detrimental to the society they constructed; not because they saw killing as a bad thing they must never do but that the consequences of unfettered killing or violence upended the beneficial situation they had created for themselves. That doesn't mean that within such a society or situation violence is always wrong, just that imposing that morality on those within it worked in the favor of those who wanted to keep that society a certain way.

Saying violence is inherently wrong or evil works completely in with what I said above about being a method of control by controlling the message. By saying it's always wrong and that they only use it when it is necessary and hate to do so they can continue to utilize it as a tool while making it unattractive to others and continue whatever agenda/purpose they have.

So no, I do not believe that violence is inherently wrong on some metaphysical fundamental level. It's wrong because people decided it was wrong when they needed it to be controlled.
Click to expand...

I mean, now we're getting into questions of morality. I think I was careful enough to categorize violence through the filter of morality though and not try to impart on it some magical quality of goodness or wrongness.
 
O

OniBarubary

Banned
Yeah, I mean, you didn't do anything unfair or unclear. You framed it properly. I think we're starting to get into heavier ideas and definitions of morality though that's a bit...not off-topic but sorta spacey and nebulous.
 
legacyzero

legacyzero

Banned
Look, I have always stood for 1st Amendment right. Even if you're a hateful prick. There's are countries that don't have that right and suffer for it IMO. We liberals don't get to pick and chose what is and isn't acceptable under the 1st and accuse Republicans of doing the same (which they do.) That constitution provides those rights, better or worse.

All that said- normally this kind of thing shouldn't be too concerning. But when I see a thread on the same front page of OT talking about our current administration looking to remove focus off of extremists of all kinds outside of Islamic.

That's fucking risky, dangerous, and alarming. So I have trouble coming into a thread like this defending the 1st when the Trump seeks to actively damage it, and not in our favor.
 
C

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
legacyzero said:
Look, I have always stood for 1st Amendment right. Even if you're a hateful prick. There's are countries that don't have that right and suffer for it IMO.
Click to expand...
Which countries specifically suffer for having legal consequences for hate speech against the rights of minorities, lbgt, etc.?
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
legacyzero said:
Look, I have always stood for 1st Amendment right. Even if you're a hateful prick. There's are countries that don't have that right and suffer for it IMO. We liberals don't get to pick and chose what is and isn't acceptable under the 1st and accuse Republicans of doing the same (which they do.) That constitution provides those rights, better or worse.

All that said- normally this kind of thing shouldn't be too concerning. But when I see a thread on the same front page of OT talking about our current administration looking to remove focus off of extremists of all kinds outside of Islamic.

That's fucking risky, dangerous, and alarming. So I have trouble coming into a thread like this defending the 1st when the Trump seeks to actively damage it, and not in our favor.
Click to expand...

Free speech laws work just fine in other countries where hate speech is not tolerated. Just look at Germany as an example.
 
S

Stone Ocean

Member
legacyzero said:
Look, I have always stood for 1st Amendment right. Even if you're a hateful prick. There's are countries that don't have that right and suffer for it IMO. We liberals don't get to pick and chose what is and isn't acceptable under the 1st and accuse Republicans of doing the same (which they do.) That constitution provides those rights, better or worse.

All that said- normally this kind of thing shouldn't be too concerning. But when I see a thread on the same front page of OT talking about our current administration looking to remove focus off of extremists of all kinds outside of Islamic.

That's fucking risky, dangerous, and alarming. So I have trouble coming into a thread like this defending the 1st when the Trump seeks to actively damage it, and not in our favor.
Click to expand...
That's not how the 1st Amendment works. Your constitution guarantees the right to say whatever you want without fear of repercussion BY THE GOVERMENT, it doesn't mean individuals or private institutions have to give you the opportunity to express it.
 
legacyzero

legacyzero

Banned
Crossing Eden said:
Which countries specifically suffer for having legal consequences for hate speech against the rights of minorities, lbgt, etc.?
Click to expand...
I meant generally.

Don't try and steer me into a dogpile that might suggest I support hate speech. Because I dont. You even cut out half my post in your quote.
Nafai1123 said:
Free speech laws work just fine in other countries where hate speech is not tolerated. Just look at Germany as an example.
Click to expand...
Ok great. Then we need to elect politicians that can amend these things. I'm all for that, and I think it's really necessary. Conservatives would have a fucking melt down of course, which makes it sweeter.

That's all in saying. Otherwise, I guess we just keep punching Nazi faces lol ✊🏻✊🏻
Stone Ocean said:
That's not how the 1st Amendment works.
Click to expand...
OK- educate me?
 
S

shiba5

Member
Stone Ocean said:
That's not how the 1st Amendment works.
Click to expand...

It's insane how many people don't know this. Told a guy on FB that Milo was banned from Twitter for harassment and doxxing people. Here's the response:
"And who banned the speech at Twitter what left-wing committee decides what belongs and what does it that's here fascism!"

I had to explain how Twitter was a private company who could do whatever the fuck they want. The 1st Amendment only protects you from the Government.
 
J

Joeku

Member
legacyzero said:
I meant generally.

Don't try and steer me into a dogpile that might suggest I support hate speech. Because I dont. You even cut out half my post in your quote.
Click to expand...

Nobody is suggesting you support hate speech. What they are saying, however, is that numerous countries disallow hate speech and do plenty fine with it.

Keep in mind that America's First Amendment isn't absolute already: can't shout fire in a theatre; can't directly incite crowds to violence. Can say that genocide might be an okay thing?

Doesn't fly with me.
 
R

remist

Member
Stone Ocean said:
That's not how the 1st Amendment works. Your constitution guarantees the right to say whatever you want without fear of repercussion BY THE GOVERMENT, it doesn't mean individuals or private institutions have to give you the opportunity to express it.
Click to expand...
UC Berkley isnt a private institution.
 
C

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
legacyzero said:
I meant generally.

Don't try and steer me into a dogpile that might suggest I support hate speech. Because I dont. You even cut out half my post in your quote.
Click to expand...
Specifically nothing of value is lost when hate speech is outlawed. I'm not trying to steer you into a dogpile. Just hate speech shouldn't be tolerated, before "but who decides what's hate speech?" Let's start with everything Breibart stands for.
 
legacyzero

legacyzero

Banned
Stone Ocean said:
Freedom of speech = the goverment can't persecute you for your opinions

It does not mean you get to say whatever you want to whoever you want.
Click to expand...
But that's the point I was making, though. Ultimately that's where it matters. Not on a discussion forum. But in the voting boothes and Capital Hill.

Even then, I wonder how we would classify hate speech in the legislation. That's why I hope we steal back the legislative branch in 2018, because shit like that wouldn't happen under our current regime.
 
B

BobbyRobby

Member
Joeku said:
Nobody is suggesting you support hate speech. What they are saying, however, is that numerous countries disallow hate speech and do plenty fine with it.

Keep in mind that America's First Amendment isn't absolute already: can't shout fire in a theatre; can't directly incite crowds to violence. Can say that genocide might be an okay thing?

Doesn't fly with me.
Click to expand...

'Fire' in a movie theatre creates imminent physical danger. That is why it is an exception.

A lot of people in this thread is calling for political violence or justifying it. Do you want someone like Trump to have the power to persecute that?
 
X

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Trump-update-Protest-at-UC-Berkeley-prompts-10902945.php

President Trump threatened to eliminate federal funds from UC Berkeley, prompting an outcry from city and university officials, the morning after police shut down an event featuring the right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos when destructive demonstrations erupted at the campus.

“If UC Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” the president tweeted early Thursday morning.

California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom fired back at Trump over Twitter, posting, “As a UC Regent I’m appalled at your willingness to deprive over 38,000 students access to an education because of the actions of a few.”

Newsom wasn’t alone.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, also issued a statement criticizing Trump’s threat to take away funding from the university.

“President Donald Trump cannot bully our university into silence. Simply put, President Trump’s empty threat to cut funding from UC Berkeley is an abuse of power,” Lee said.

Trump’s tweet confused some UC officials, who stressed that the university was committed to ensuring that the event would proceed, as long as the well-being of students were not in jeopardy.

“It’s hard to discern what (the tweet) means given that the university went through extraordinary lengths to prevent violence, went through extraordinary lengths to facilitate the planning and presentation of the event,” Dan Mogulof, a spokesman for UC Berkeley, said Thursday morning. “And that the university has condemned the violence of all this behavior and deeply regrets the fact that basic First Amendment rights were unable to be supported last night.”

The event, organized by the Berkeley College Republicans, wasn’t canceled until two hours before the event when 150 masked protestors came on campus and interrupted an “otherwise nonviolent protest,” according to a statement from the university.

Mogulof attributed the destruction that took place on campus to nearly “two dozen black clad individuals using power military tactics.”

“I’m not sure how one plans for the unprecedented,” Mogulof said, referring to the individuals “swathed in black from head to toe.”

Protesters began throwing fireworks and pulling down metal barricades outside the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union, where the event was set to take place. Police evacuated Yiannopoulos, an editor for the far-right website Breitbart News, for his own safety.

Mogulof emphasized that university officials and police did not engage in violence against anyone that participated in the event.
Click to expand...
 
S

shiba5

Member
BobbyRobby said:
'Fire' in a movie theatre creates imminent physical danger. That is why it is an exception.

A lot of people in this thread is calling for political violence or justifying it. Do you want someone like Trump to have the power to persecute that?
Click to expand...

He's going to do it anyway. He's itching for it.
 
F

Frozenprince

Banned
BobbyRobby said:
'Fire' in a movie theatre creates imminent physical danger. That is why it is an exception.

A lot of people in this thread is calling for political violence or justifying it. Do you want someone like Trump to have the power to persecute that?
Click to expand...

Why don't you read some of the literature that's been posted.
 
L

Lime

Member
Still can't believe the fucking President of the United States threatened a university over student protests against a fascist.
 
Hari Seldon

Hari Seldon

Member
Nafai1123 said:
Free speech laws work just fine in other countries where hate speech is not tolerated. Just look at Germany as an example.
Click to expand...

This is why free speech laws are stupid. Someone has to determine what is and what is not hate speech right? Who is the current President of the United States?
 
R

remist

Member
Nafai1123 said:
Exactly, which is why they were forced to agree to his speech, and taxpayers were free to protest and silence him if possible.
Click to expand...
They are free to protest, but the violence only silences him temporarly by puting students safety at risk. They will have to eventually allow him to come speak as long as he still has an invitation from the college republicans.
 
E

everyday math

Banned
remist said:
They are free to protest, but the violence only silences him temporarly by puting students safety at risk. They will have to eventually allow him to come speak as long as he still has an invitation from the college republicans.
Click to expand...
And so the students will be there again. And so on and so forth.
 
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