I guess another topic for this thread could have been "When to punch a woman".
In all seriousness though, when are things going to stop at Berkely? This was the third Riot so far this year, all instigated by the same people. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the White Nationalists that were on the other side of this conflict. I oppose what they believe, but I do support their right to publically assemble and speak their minds. The same goes for any group, whether they are Black Panthers, the KKK, or NAMBLA.
Black Bloc and Antifa would be okay with me if their goal was to simply counter protest and bring media attention. Bringing explosives, smoke bombs, pepper spray, and clubs to beat on otherwise peaceful demonstrators isn't in any way acceptable though.
Which leads me to my next thought. Why is the Antifa woman that got sucker-punch being portrayed as such a victim by the media? Sure, a guy sucker-punched a girl in the mouth. However, when the video is shown they tend to edit out the parts where she is throwing glass bottles, swinging bottles, and triple-team beating a man on the ground. While I don't condone violence of any sort if you are instigating violence you become a viable target regardless of your gender.
All in all these protestor clashes seem to be escalating. It woudln't surprise me if it is only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured or killed. How long will the police sit by and let it all happen?
I for one hope this continues for my personal amusement.
As GC has decided to pass on Berkeley on attend UT's Mad Scientist School and is not in the frey all I can say is...break out the firebombs and bike chains.
Berkeley is a mess. From the groups itching for a fight, to the police seemingly unprepared to handle these occurrences, I can't imagine the citizens are happy. I am amazed that when people were arriving with weapons, anyone thought the continued demonstrations should be allowed. Since these groups know it is allowed to escalate, I only see it continuing.
I'm not a fan of police brutality, or hammering peaceful protestors, but when it turned into an outright brawl, they should have thrown enough tear gas to accurately recreate WW1. No permits, turned to violence between groups that would legitimately kill each other given the chance, incapacitate all of them.
Trumpsters being bussed in get attacked by Black Bloc radicals (2nd time). This time Black Bloc get heads handed to them.
If Berkeley PoPo don't get control, there's going to be gunplay. Mark my words.
cuda1179 wrote: I guess another topic for this thread could have been "When to punch a woman".
In all seriousness though, when are things going to stop at Berkely? This was the third Riot so far this year, all instigated by the same people. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the White Nationalists that were on the other side of this conflict. I oppose what they believe, but I do support their right to publically assemble and speak their minds. The same goes for any group, whether they are Black Panthers, the KKK, or NAMBLA.
Black Bloc and Antifa would be okay with me if their goal was to simply counter protest and bring media attention. Bringing explosives, smoke bombs, pepper spray, and clubs to beat on otherwise peaceful demonstrators isn't in any way acceptable though.
Which leads me to my next thought. Why is the Antifa woman that got sucker-punch being portrayed as such a victim by the media? Sure, a guy sucker-punched a girl in the mouth. However, when the video is shown they tend to edit out the parts where she is throwing glass bottles, swinging bottles, and triple-team beating a man on the ground. While I don't condone violence of any sort if you are instigating violence you become a viable target regardless of your gender.
All in all these protestor clashes seem to be escalating. It woudln't surprise me if it is only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured or killed. How long will the police sit by and let it all happen?
The rumor I've heard is that the girl punched wasn't just throwing glass, supposedly she was loading the glass jars with M80s (low grade explosives) THEN throwing them at people.
Trumpsters being bussed in get attacked by Black Bloc radicals (2nd time). This time Black Bloc get heads handed to them.
If Berkeley PoPo don't get control, there's going to be gunplay. Mark my words.
Yep. One day, the people they are attacking are likely going to hit back hard and with hardware. It's almost inevitable...violence begets violence.
Trumpsters being bussed in get attacked by Black Bloc radicals (2nd time). This time Black Bloc get heads handed to them.
If Berkeley PoPo don't get control, there's going to be gunplay. Mark my words.
Yep. One day, the people they are attacking are likely going to hit back hard and with hardware. It's almost inevitable...violence begets violence.
And to be honest Trumps are more likely to be armed with guns than they are.
Or thr open carry supporting groups.
Trumpsters being bussed in get attacked by Black Bloc radicals (2nd time). This time Black Bloc get heads handed to them.
If Berkeley PoPo don't get control, there's going to be gunplay. Mark my words.
Yep. One day, the people they are attacking are likely going to hit back hard and with hardware. It's almost inevitable...violence begets violence.
And to be honest Trumps are more likely to be armed with guns than they are.
Trumpsters being bussed in get attacked by Black Bloc radicals (2nd time). This time Black Bloc get heads handed to them. If Berkeley PoPo don't get control, there's going to be gunplay. Mark my words.
Yep. One day, the people they are attacking are likely going to hit back hard and with hardware. It's almost inevitable...violence begets violence.
And to be honest Trumps are more likely to be armed with guns than they are. Or thr open carry supporting groups.
Except these types do like to at least pretend to be well armed and open carry...
The M-80s they are launching at people are very real, though. And it's stupidity of the highest order. If you bring rocks, they come back with knives, if you bring knives, they come back with guns, etc.
Not sure where firecrackers come into that equation, but the only reason to hurl a firecracker at someone is to maim them. And that's a recipe for escalation.
jasper76 wrote: The M-80s they are launching at people are very real, though. And it's stupidity of the highest order. If you bring rocks, they come back with knives, if you bring knives, they come back with guns, etc.
Not sure where firecrackers come into that equation, but the only reason to hurl a firecracker at someone is to maim them. And that's a recipe for escalation.
If mistaken for a gunshot to.
Stupid games win deadly prizes.
To sum up this story, there was a "Free Speach" rally where students and out-of-towners showed up. Some of them were white nationalists.
The group known as Antifa let it be known they were going to show up and cause violence. Some members of the group were quite open about their violent intentions on social media. Their group claims to be anti-facist, yet (ironically enough) states that they believe that not everyone should have the right to openly discuss their views and that most views should be legally banned.
After a good stare-down session Antifa started throwing explosives and home made tear gas, however they threw the tear gas upwind, and it all blew back on them. Scuffles between the groups circled the demonstration area for a while. Reporters on the scene have estimated about 80% of the violence was instigated by Antifa. Eventually the Free Speach group started to win the fights and chased the Antifa group away.
Previously Antifa has been known to beat on bystanders in the area and loot nearby stores during their protests.
cuda1179 wrote: Their group claims to be anti-facist, yet (ironically enough) states that they believe that not everyone should have the right to openly discuss their views and that most views should be legally banned.
And the irony here seems completely lost on them. The few people I've discussed this stuff with that are actually supportive of Antifa tactics and goals seem genuinely unaware that they are acting more like fascists than those they oppose.
A while back I bought a full suit of surplus police riot gear. It would be fun to see how much of a beating that stuff could hold up to. The only reason I actually bought it was to use as a Halloween costume. Buying the real thing was almost as cheap as buying the fake costume replica, so I thought "what the heck".
cuda1179 wrote: A while back I bought a full suit of surplus police riot gear. It would be fun to see how much of a beating that stuff could hold up to.
Wait, from where? Daddy Needs him his Zombie Games uniform...and pronto!
I got it from a military surplus store in Omaha. Unfortuneately the store still exists, but no longer carries military surplus. They sell mostly kayaks, tents, and paintball guns now.
There's some stuff that should be noted about these incidents.
By and large, these are relatively small scale events that are beinf portrayed as having national significance by elements on all sides, when mostly they arent. This latest incident had a couple dozen arrests from both sides and seemingly no bystander harm/damage. Many a sporting event has had more action than that. We also have people who are saying and advocating for deplorable things and are doing it largely to get a reaction in a place they know is hypersensitive, and people inevitably feed into it due to the nature of the things being advocated for, and the runaway Trevor's Axiom effect being used by all sides to feed their interests in turn and portray these events far differently from what their actual impact and scale is.
For instance, we see elements making out the punched girl to be an innocent victim who was assaulted for no reason instead two donkey-caves going at it who both should have been arrested. We get other elements calling it the "Berkely Battle" and making it out like it was a huge battle royal and that "the left" (however nebulous that is) is aggressively violent against free speech, again, instead of it just being a relatively small group of donkey-caves (many or most not local Berkely people) getting into tiffs with another relatively small group of donkey-caves (again, also with many if not most being non-local) hoping to instigate a tiff.
You youngins might not know this, but Berkley is where Rage Against the Machine started out from in the early 90s. Thing is, RatM weren't doing it for the usual rock star reasons, they genuinely thought they were going to kickstart a global revolution of the youth. Instead their message was co-opted and made mad bank for the record execs. So the kids of Berkley now skip the angry guitars and go straight to the bottle throwing.
I'm generally sympathetic to the ignorant antifa kids because I still remember being young and stupid and full of wildfire. How many old fat guys on the antifa side? How many old fat guys in MAGA hats?
Why are you sympathetic? They are trying to stop the freedom of speech and association of others via intimidation and violence.
Police should go after them via RICO.
I literally said why, Frazz. Put down the Rum n' RC and put on your glasses!
feeder wrote: I'm generally sympathetic to the ignorant antifa kids because I still remember being young and stupid and full of wildfire. How many old fat guys on the antifa side? How many old fat guys in MAGA hats?
If your on the side of old fat guys you're in the wrong. Unless it's historical gaming. Then it's old fat guys as far as the eye can see.
feeder wrote: I literally said why, Frazz. Put down the Rum n' RC and put on your glasses!
feeder wrote: I'm generally sympathetic to the ignorant antifa kids because I still remember being young and stupid and full of wildfire. How many old fat guys on the antifa side? How many old fat guys in MAGA hats?
If your on the side of old fat guys you're in the wrong. Unless it's historical gaming. Then it's old fat guys as far as the eye can see.
I don't see why being young makes you want to oppress others. When I was young I did no have the desire to go out and oppress others.
Honestly my impression of antifa kids is that they are bitter that their poor life choices didn't result in gainful employment, and they are angry because Bernie didn't get elected to give them free stuff.
feeder wrote: I literally said why, Frazz. Put down the Rum n' RC and put on your glasses!
feeder wrote: I'm generally sympathetic to the ignorant antifa kids because I still remember being young and stupid and full of wildfire. How many old fat guys on the antifa side? How many old fat guys in MAGA hats?
If your on the side of old fat guys you're in the wrong. Unless it's historical gaming. Then it's old fat guys as far as the eye can see.
I don't see why being young makes you want to oppress others. When I was young I did no have the desire to go out and oppress others.
I remember thinking I had life figured out, and everyone else who didn't think like me was stupid. But I never had any desire to hurt people, shut them up, or take their stuff. Respect for free speech used to be a thing, even among the youth.
Tactical_Spam wrote:That's assuming that their aren't fat old guys who side with antifa (not in name, but ideas) and there aren't ahem, youngins, who wear MAGA hats.
Well, yeah, it's not a 100% split. I'm being, to quote a top quality administrator, "grossly generalistic".
kronk wrote:Granola chicks love a rebel, and there are a lot of granola chicks at Berkeley.
As always, it's the attempt to impress chicks that leads to this kind of silliness.
\
This guy gets it.
Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote: I literally said why, Frazz. Put down the Rum n' RC and put on your glasses!
feeder wrote: I'm generally sympathetic to the ignorant antifa kids because I still remember being young and stupid and full of wildfire. How many old fat guys on the antifa side? How many old fat guys in MAGA hats?
If your on the side of old fat guys you're in the wrong. Unless it's historical gaming. Then it's old fat guys as far as the eye can see.
I don't see why being young makes you want to oppress others. When I was young I did no have the desire to go out and oppress others.
Try to think back to your youth and put yourself in their shoes. But this time, the hyenadons are wearing red ball caps.
Lets not make it out like people havent been doing exactly this sort of thing since...forever. It's not new by any means. Lets also not make it out like just one side is the bad guy here, when we have enthusiastic participants on both sides. If these people just wanted to express their views, they neednt go to Berkely to do that, they are choosing to travel there because it's where they'll get the biggest reaction and coverage.
Vaktathi wrote:Lets not make it out like people havent been doing exactly this sort of thing since...forever. It's not new by any means. Lets also not make it out like just one side is the bad guy here, when we have enthusiastic participants on both sides. If these people just wanted to express their views, they neednt go to Berkely to do that, they are choosing to travel there because it's where they'll get the biggest reaction and coverage.
Exactly. Bernie never asked his fans to beat up dissidents with offers to pay their legal fees.
MrDwhitey wrote:The worst part is that woman chose Jamesons bottles as weapons.
When you're young and poor, you can't afford to be picky. I know which option I used to choose when it was "cheap, or sober?"
kronk wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote: The worst part is that woman chose Jamesons bottles as weapons.
Crown Royal would have been classier.
My pride and joy when I was a wee lad was my genuine purple Crown Royal dice bag.
Vaktathi wrote:Lets not make it out like people havent been doing exactly this sort of thing since...forever. It's not new by any means. Lets also not make it out like just one side is the bad guy here, when we have enthusiastic participants on both sides. If these people just wanted to express their views, they neednt go to Berkely to do that, they are choosing to travel there because it's where they'll get the biggest reaction and coverage.
Exactly. Bernie never asked his fans to beat up dissidents with offers to pay their legal fees.
He didn't have to, other organizations, like Moveon.org funded legal fees for anti-Trump protestors.
Vaktathi wrote:Lets not make it out like people havent been doing exactly this sort of thing since...forever. It's not new by any means. Lets also not make it out like just one side is the bad guy here, when we have enthusiastic participants on both sides. If these people just wanted to express their views, they neednt go to Berkely to do that, they are choosing to travel there because it's where they'll get the biggest reaction and coverage.
Exactly. Bernie never asked his fans to beat up dissidents with offers to pay their legal fees.
He didn't have to, other organizations, like Moveon.org funded legal fees for anti-Trump protestors.
as a legitimate question...is there a source for that? I've seen the claim from some places, but never any actual backing aside from misconstruing convassing jobs on craigslist.
cuda1179 wrote: Their group claims to be anti-facist, yet (ironically enough) states that they believe that not everyone should have the right to openly discuss their views and that most views should be legally banned.
And the irony here seems completely lost on them. The few people I've discussed this stuff with that are actually supportive of Antifa tactics and goals seem genuinely unaware that they are acting more like fascists than those they oppose.
Do they terrorise ethnic, sexual and religious minorities? Do they demand absolute deferral to the authorities? Do they strive towards the establishment of a supreme nation-state based on the spiritual connection between blood and soil? Are they overwhelmingly from the middle class and working in tandem with the owning class to protect capitalist interests from the workers' movement?
jasper76 wrote: Honestly my impression of antifa kids is that they are bitter that their poor life choices didn't result in gainful employment, and they are angry because Bernie didn't get elected to give them free stuff.
For growing parts of the US (and indeed the rest of the West), "gainful employment" doesn't exist. It's the gig economy or bust. Claiming that this is because of "poor life choices" is deeply ignorant.
Vaktathi wrote: For instance, we see elements making out the punched girl to be an innocent victim who was assaulted for no reason instead two donkey-caves going at it who both should have been arrested. We get other elements calling it the "Berkely Battle" and making it out like it was a huge battle royal and that "the left" (however nebulous that is) is aggressively violent against free speech, again, instead of it just being a relatively small group of donkey-caves (many or most not local Berkely people) getting into tiffs with another relatively small group of donkey-caves (again, also with many if not most being non-local) hoping to instigate a tiff.
She's not innocent.
- She's photographed using a wine bottle as a weapon. Throws a glass bottle into a crowd.
- On video agreed with antifa "using M80 firecrackers" on the crowd since "this was war" when questioned that an older women was injured by the firecrackers
- Was recently pornagraphic film
- Has 6600$ from a "GoFund Me" for being punched https://www.gofundme.com/3nj1iqg - She comes from an extremely wealthy neighborhood, advocated open borders, and her high school had a sub 15% non white (latinos count as white apparently) population
- She drove 5.5 hours to attend the protest with her boyfriend with the intent to "scalp 100 nazis" (she is not a student and is not local)
Tactical_Spam wrote: That's assuming that their aren't fat old guys who side with antifa (not in name, but ideas) and there aren't ahem, youngins, who wear MAGA hats.
I went with a dozen guys that were 21-25 to the last rally. It seems to be more mom and dads going as couples, and older professional folk in their mid 30s and a sprinkling of baby boomers. Some of the local law school showed up
jasper76 wrote: Honestly my impression of antifa kids is that they are bitter that their poor life choices didn't result in gainful employment, and they are angry because Bernie didn't get elected to give them free stuff.
My cousin is antifa in NY and went down to DC to march. She's a sophomore in college now, no job and lots of debt. lots of rage anarchy and hip hop music. Journalism major too - so she hangs out in the crowd and goes wild with her camera
cuda1179 wrote: Their group claims to be anti-facist, yet (ironically enough) states that they believe that not everyone should have the right to openly discuss their views and that most views should be legally banned.
And the irony here seems completely lost on them. The few people I've discussed this stuff with that are actually supportive of Antifa tactics and goals seem genuinely unaware that they are acting more like fascists than those they oppose.
Do they terrorise ethnic, sexual and religious minorities? Do they demand absolute deferral to the authorities? Do they strive towards the establishment of a supreme nation-state based on the spiritual connection between blood and soil? Are they overwhelmingly from the middle class and working in tandem with the owning class to protect capitalist interests from the workers' movement?
Honestly, the ones I see get interviewed seem either incapable of communicating or unwilling to divulge their motives or goals. Other than acting like fascists while decrying fascism, which they seem incapable of or unwilling to define, who knows what they actually want? And they do not even seem to recognize that they are the ones who come across as being wannabe fascists themselves. Lack of self-awareness.
Honestly my impression of antifa kids is that they are bitter that their poor life choices didn't result in gainful employment, and they are angry because Bernie didn't get elected to give them free stuff.
For growing parts of the US (and indeed the rest of the West), "gainful employment" doesn't exist. It's the gig economy or bust. Claiming that this is because of "poor life choices" is deeply ignorant.
For growing parts of the US (and indeed the rest of the West), "gainful employment" doesn't exist. It's the gig economy or bust. Claiming that this is because of "poor life choices" is deeply ignorant.
Cry me a river. This isn't the first time the US economy was in the slumps, and it won't be the last. There are things you can do as an individual to improve your circumstances besides acting like a fascist, assaulting people in the streets, hurling M-80s at people, and destroying other people's stuff.
jasper76 wrote: Honestly my impression of antifa kids is that they are bitter that their poor life choices didn't result in gainful employment, and they are angry because Bernie didn't get elected to give them free stuff.
For growing parts of the US (and indeed the rest of the West), "gainful employment" doesn't exist. It's the gig economy or bust. Claiming that this is because of "poor life choices" is deeply ignorant.
More to the point, I think most of these kids are too young for any of these things to have really kicked in. Thats the kind of thing that you run into post 25, maybe around 30, not at 19. That's just not something people that age get despondent about yet.
Being 19 and thinking you can take on the world and know everything is pretty common however.
Do they terrorise ethnic, sexual and religious minorities? Do they demand absolute deferral to the authorities? Do they strive towards the establishment of a supreme nation-state based on the spiritual connection between blood and soil? Are they overwhelmingly from the middle class and working in tandem with the owning class to protect capitalist interests from the workers' movement?
Honestly, the ones I see get interviewed seem either incapable of communicating or unwilling to divulge their motives or goals. Other than acting like fascists while decrying fascism, which they seem incapable of or unwilling to define, and they do not seem to recognize that they are the ones who come across as being wannabe fascists themselves.
Once again, which of those classical fascist actions do they undertake? If they don't suppress minorities or workers and don't in fact champion fascist causes then they aren't much in the way of fascists, particularly considering that's who they want to directly fight.
What you're doing is like saying that a Union soldier is the same thing as a Confederate soldier because both were fighting each other. You can't just home in on the absolute most superficial similarities in the mechanics of their actions and ignore their motivations and greater context.
Vaktathi wrote: For instance, we see elements making out the punched girl to be an innocent victim who was assaulted for no reason instead two donkey-caves going at it who both should have been arrested. We get other elements calling it the "Berkely Battle" and making it out like it was a huge battle royal and that "the left" (however nebulous that is) is aggressively violent against free speech, again, instead of it just being a relatively small group of donkey-caves (many or most not local Berkely people) getting into tiffs with another relatively small group of donkey-caves (again, also with many if not most being non-local) hoping to instigate a tiff.
She's not innocent.
I didnt say she was.
- Was recently pornagraphic film
Not sure what that has to do with anything other than maybe some people's evening video watching choices...
Do they terrorise ethnic, sexual and religious minorities? Do they demand absolute deferral to the authorities? Do they strive towards the establishment of a supreme nation-state based on the spiritual connection between blood and soil? Are they overwhelmingly from the middle class and working in tandem with the owning class to protect capitalist interests from the workers' movement?
Honestly, the ones I see get interviewed seem either incapable of communicating or unwilling to divulge their motives or goals. Other than acting like fascists while decrying fascism, which they seem incapable of or unwilling to define, and they do not seem to recognize that they are the ones who come across as being wannabe fascists themselves.
Once again, which of those classical fascist actions do they undertake? If they don't suppress minorities or workers and don't in fact champion fascist causes then they aren't much in the way of fascists, particularly considering that's who they want to directly fight.
What you're doing is like saying that a Union soldier is the same thing as a Confederate soldier because both were fighting each other. You can't just home in on the absolute most superficial similarities in the mechanics of their actions and ignore their motivations and greater context.
Antifa uses violence as a tactic to push their agenda. Fascist. They do not respect liberal democracy or accept the outcome of free elections. Fascist. They seek to destroy freedom of speech and expression. Fascist.
That's what I mean when I say they come across as wannabe fascists.
Do they terrorise ethnic, sexual and religious minorities? Do they demand absolute deferral to the authorities? Do they strive towards the establishment of a supreme nation-state based on the spiritual connection between blood and soil? Are they overwhelmingly from the middle class and working in tandem with the owning class to protect capitalist interests from the workers' movement?
Honestly, the ones I see get interviewed seem either incapable of communicating or unwilling to divulge their motives or goals. Other than acting like fascists while decrying fascism, which they seem incapable of or unwilling to define, and they do not seem to recognize that they are the ones who come across as being wannabe fascists themselves.
Once again, which of those classical fascist actions do they undertake? If they don't suppress minorities or workers and don't in fact champion fascist causes then they aren't much in the way of fascists, particularly considering that's who they want to directly fight.
What you're doing is like saying that a Union soldier is the same thing as a Confederate soldier because both were fighting each other. You can't just home in on the absolute most superficial similarities in the mechanics of their actions and ignore their motivations and greater context.
However the same group you are defending justify their actions by saying their opponents are Nazis. Are you saying the people you are defending are more dumb then a box of rocks?
On the flipside to the Trumpsters being bused in..who's paying you?
Do they terrorise ethnic, sexual and religious minorities? Do they demand absolute deferral to the authorities? Do they strive towards the establishment of a supreme nation-state based on the spiritual connection between blood and soil? Are they overwhelmingly from the middle class and working in tandem with the owning class to protect capitalist interests from the workers' movement?
Honestly, the ones I see get interviewed seem either incapable of communicating or unwilling to divulge their motives or goals. Other than acting like fascists while decrying fascism, which they seem incapable of or unwilling to define, and they do not seem to recognize that they are the ones who come across as being wannabe fascists themselves.
Once again, which of those classical fascist actions do they undertake? If they don't suppress minorities or workers and don't in fact champion fascist causes then they aren't much in the way of fascists, particularly considering that's who they want to directly fight.
What you're doing is like saying that a Union soldier is the same thing as a Confederate soldier because both were fighting each other. You can't just home in on the absolute most superficial similarities in the mechanics of their actions and ignore their motivations and greater context.
Antifa uses violence as a tactic to push their agenda. Fascist. They believe that liberal democracy is obsolete. Fascist. They seek to destroy freedom of speech. Fascist.
None of these are stricly Fascist in and of themselves. They can be attibuted to many forms of government
Likewise, most of this is rather selective interpretations of actions based on a rather extreme fringe group.
Vaktathi wrote: None of these are stricly Fascist in and of themselves. They can be attibuted to many forms of government
Likewise, most of this is rather selective interpretations of actions based on a rather extreme fringe group.
/pedantic
I'll meet you halfway on your first point.
As to your second, yes, Antifa is an extreme fringe group. But that's who we've been discussing. They're the ones hiding behind masks, dressed in black and red, assaulting people, tossing firecrackers at people, and destroying property. I don't see how I'm being selective when these are clear patterns of behavior that Antifa is establishing. Care to elaborate? Have I missed your second point?
At Penn, it is not particularly dangerous to be a journalist. We, the staff of Penn’s student newspaper, are grateful for that. We are grateful that our opinion columnists may assume that if they air an unpopular or controversial viewpoint, they will not be physically assaulted. We are grateful that, when our reporters publish unflattering truths, they are not threatened with sanction or harm.
We feel entitled to rely on these assumptions because we do not do our work in Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey or Vladimir Putin’s Russia, but on the campus of a prestigious American university, where, generally, liberal norms of peaceable dispute and nonviolence are, we believe, deeply ingrained.
It is therefore alarming to observe what seems to be the fraying of these norms on some American campuses. It is deeply concerning that, at least among some fellow students at peer schools, the academic norm of resolving our ideological disputes with words instead of fists seems to be weakening.
In recent weeks, at the University of California at Berkeley and Middlebury College, students turned to physical violence to prevent speeches by guests whom they found objectionable.
Given the extensive prior coverage of and commentary on these events in other publications, we would ordinarily see no need to chime in. However, we have been specifically disappointed that some other student newspapers’ editorial boards are not standing up for the principles of free speech and dialogue on which student newspapers depend.
Following the riot on Berkeley’s campus, its student paper’s editorial stopped short of condemning those who engaged in it outright. Middlebury’s student paper, The Middlebury Campus, said nothing after an attack on controversial scholar Charles Murray put the professor moderating his talk in the hospital. Faced with a controversy over the invitation of provocative Canadian scholar Jordan Peterson, whose positions on pronoun-usage many students view as hateful towards transgender individuals, to speak at Harvard University, The Crimson criticized what it characterized as “unqualified support of [free speech]” as “tone-deaf.”
Perhaps most alarmingly, The Wellesley News, with whom we collaborated on our election endorsement in November, went a step further, appearing, in a frankly disturbing editorial, to endorse “hostility” against those who “refuse to adapt their beliefs.” Following closely as it did upon the heels of the events at Berkeley and Middlebury, it requires an exceptionally charitable reading to interpret that remark as something other than a conditional endorsement of violence.
Amid these disappointments, we wish to clearly reaffirm some basic principles. Violence is never, under any circumstance whatsoever, an appropriate or acceptable response to the peaceable exchange of ideas, however hateful or otherwise reprehensible they might be. A speaker’s freedom from violence must be absolute. If individuals choose, as they did at Middlebury and Berkeley, to respond to speech with violence, the moral fault is theirs and theirs alone. Speech is not violence. No misguided notion of self-defense can justify responding to the former with the latter.
The willingness to let someone speak on a college campus must not be confused with endorsement of the views expressed. Penn students have exemplified this in their reactions to the homophobic “preachers” whose appearance on campus has now become something of a routine.
The term “hate speech” can be useful for the purpose of arguing that some speech ought not to be taken seriously. Subjectively applying the label, however, does not render the speech in question legally or ethically subject to violent or coercive suppression. “Hate speech” is too flexible a concept to be used in this way. Even when we are firmly convinced that a speaker’s positions are motivated by hatred, to threaten or carry out physical aggression remains, always, an unacceptable response.
And so we say what we wish our peers would have the conviction to: Never perpetrate violence in the name of attacking hate speech, and shame on those who fail to condemn such violence. You do yourselves and the rest of us a great disservice.
Vaktathi wrote: None of these are stricly Fascist in and of themselves. They can be attibuted to many forms of government
Likewise, most of this is rather selective interpretations of actions based on a rather extreme fringe group.
/pedantic
I'll meet you halfway on your first point.
As to your second, yes, Antifa is an extreme fringe group. But that's who I'm discussing. I don't see how I'm being selective when there are clear patterns of behavior that Antifa is establishing. Care to elaborate?
there's lots of people showing up to these events. Most arent interested in violence on either side and most dont get involved in such acts. "Antifa" is a very wide label used across many nations to mean a multitude of things from a broader spectrum than is traditionally applied to Facism. While Fascism basically inherently involves the use of force on some level (and the term is often used inappropriately), "antifa" doesnt have anything near the same political cohesion in terms of doctrine and approach and encompasses a much wider variety of political viewpoints and choice of methods, from radical revolutionary anarchism/communism (e.g. the old spanish POUM of the 1930's) to nonviolent blocking of neonazi marches (such as in Germany) to simple weekend protesting.
Unless we're using "antifa" in a very narrow range to refer to just the people doing stupid gak in Berkely, in which case, I'll concede the point.
Unless we're using "antifa" in a very narrow range to refer to just the people doing stupid gak in Berkely, in which case, I'll concede the point.
Thanks for the clarification, Vaktathi. I am probably doing a little of the above, bit I'm not sure this is limited to Berkeley. I've seen vids of antifa dressed people playing at thugs in multiple cities. Portland seems to be a big one. I'd suggest to you that this kind of behavior may not be as limited as you perceive.
Unless we're using "antifa" in a very narrow range to refer to just the people doing stupid gak in Berkely, in which case, I'll concede the point.
Thanks for the clarification, Vaktathi. I am probably doing a little of the above, bit I'm not sure this is limited to Berkeley. I've seen vids of antifa dressed people playing at thugs in multiple cities. Portland seems to be a big one. I'd suggest to you that this kind of behavior may not be as limited as you perceive.
perhaps, thats always possible, we all live in our own bubbles of perception and I'm certainly not immune to that, but at least in Portland, from my experience, most of these are extremely young types that are more into "row row fight the powah" than anything else, and would take advantage of any large "fight the man" event to just run amok. I dont think there is any clear ideology or intent beyond that with most of them. As I've noted elsewhere, the types rioting in Portland and causing damage did so to the area of town that is an enclave for HRC's donor class
Edit: that said, upon somr reflection, he local ruffians are also likely different from the types actively travelling to these locations as well, those are the types that seem to be causing issues at Berkely
I only want to say that speech can be in fact violence.
Psicological violence isn't violence? And I don't say this to justificate anything about this.
But is normal when, presented with a extremism, the opposed extremism do his move to normalize itself.
Speech shouldn't be responded with violence. I agree with that. But that doesn't means that words can't be in fact violence against a individual or a group. Thats work for the legal system althought, not to violent people in the street.
Galas wrote: I only want to say that speech can be in fact violence.
Psicological violence isn't violence? And I don't say this to justificate anything about this.
But is normal when, presented with a extremism, the opposed extremism do his move to normalize itself.
Speech shouldn't be responded with violence. I aggre with that. But that doesn't means that words can't be in fact violence against a individual or a group. Thats work for the legislation system altought, not to violent people in the street.
We'll have to agree to disagree. We have the First Amendment here to help insure this view doesn't make it out of the university system (and Kalifornia).
Besides, sticks and stones break my bones but if you talk during the movie I will throw a pissed off wiener dog at your face!
Well. I was talking about people commiting suicide after 20 years of psicological violence from their wife/husband. Children ending his lives after years of bullying from their companions.
That phrase is a nice thing to say but reality is very different.
But yes. Here we don't have Free Spech as a fundamental right, so our mentality is very different in many things.
Galas wrote: Well. I was talking about people commiting suicide after 20 years of psicological violence from their wife/husband. Children ending his lives after years of bullying from their companions.
Ok now I get where you are going. I'd categorize those a bit differently as abuse/harassment. I am referring more to political speech.
That phrase is a nice thing to say but reality is very different.
What phrase, you best not be dissin my wiener.
But yes. Here we don't have Free Spech as a fundamental right, so our mentality is very different in many things.
Yes it really is a fundamental difference to the US and many other countries. Alas I fear it is slipping. I blame disco.
Even in the US, not all speech is protected, you cannot make imminent direct threats for instance. You can say "all X people should die" and be fine legally speaking, but not "hey you, X guy over there, I'm gonna come kill you because you're X".
Now, that line can get real fuzzy sometimes, as can the line between speech and action, and that's usually where we start to get issues like the ones we see now, particularly when coupled with echo chamber media that dramatically distorts the truth on both sides.
However the US does tolerate and allow stuff even other ostensibly "free" democratic nations do not in regards to speech, the US typically errs on the side of greater personal freedom in exchange for greater potential disruption/discomfort moreso than other nations.
Yeah, it's why this kind of violence is insidious.
Think of it like dogs:
Group A can bark whatever they want. Group B can counterbark. They can bark at each other all day. But when A or B gets physical, party over and time to start making arrests. When A&B come to the location with weapons, it's clearly not barking any more, they are looking to bite. Supporting one or the other biting undermines the whole system- we don't protect biting! The whole goal is to have a system where everyone can bark and no biting!
To extend the analogy, we also don't protect snapping, because that is a provocation to bite.
Riots are right out. Riot if you want, but be prepared for the consequences.
cuda1179 wrote: Their group claims to be anti-facist, yet (ironically enough) states that they believe that not everyone should have the right to openly discuss their views and that most views should be legally banned.
And the irony here seems completely lost on them. The few people I've discussed this stuff with that are actually supportive of Antifa tactics and goals seem genuinely unaware that they are acting more like fascists than those they oppose.
Do they terrorise ethnic, sexual and religious minorities? Do they demand absolute deferral to the authorities? Do they strive towards the establishment of a supreme nation-state based on the spiritual connection between blood and soil? Are they overwhelmingly from the middle class and working in tandem with the owning class to protect capitalist interests from the workers' movement?
Their goals maybe different, but their tactics are eerily similar. Antifa is a classic example of gazing into the abyss for too long.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I am glad to see the young left getting jiggy with it. It's about time the SJWs stopped talking and started acting.
Bring back the spirit of 1968!
Do any of these riots even have a point?
The footage from the Berkley shenanigans makes it look like half the people are there just to record videos on their smartphones or talk selfies hoping that somebody else does something noteworthy, a third of the people are there just because they think its a cool thing to do, a quarter of the people there are trying to make some sort of inarticulate political point and a small minority are there just to break stuff because breaking stuff is fun.
There was widespread domestic terrorism and bombings in the 1960s and 1970s but at least they tried to cloak most of it with some kind of semi coherent agenda.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I am glad to see the young left getting jiggy with it. It's about time the SJWs stopped talking and started acting.
Bring back the spirit of 1968!
You're "glad to see the young left getting jiggy with" black bloc tactics, shutting down free speech, the assaults on others, the launching of bottles, and the use of fireworks on people that they disagree with?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Mass arrests are a hallmark of an oppressive government.
So would mass arrests during massive public disturbance be the hallmark of an oppressive government?
cuda1179 wrote: A while back I bought a full suit of surplus police riot gear. It would be fun to see how much of a beating that stuff could hold up to.
Wait, from where? Daddy Needs him his Zombie Games uniform...and pronto!
Ha! Back in the day, I saw an actual flak jacket in a surplus store. Decided I didn't need it. Now, kinda wish I'd have gotten it, just to have.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I am glad to see the young left getting jiggy with it. It's about time the SJWs stopped talking and started acting.
Bring back the spirit of 1968!
Do any of these riots even have a point?
The footage from the Berkley shenanigans makes it look like half the people are there just to record videos on their smartphones or talk selfies hoping that somebody else does something noteworthy, a third of the people are there just because they think its a cool thing to do, a quarter of the people there are trying to make some sort of inarticulate political point and a small minority are there just to break stuff because breaking stuff is fun.
That's pretty much it. Crazy people go somewhere to stir up trouble that other people are too willing to oblige while different media push their own narratives to advance their own agenda or for profit, driving the crazies even crazier to set up for the next cycle.
There was widespread domestic terrorism and bombings in the 1960s and 1970s but at least they tried to cloak most of it with some kind of semi coherent agenda.
the big key here is that in general this stuff is not widespread, it's localized to a handful of areas that most people already see as political hotspots, and the actual violence is rather limited and tame by the standards of political violence, nobody is being killed or maimed or crippled for life, buildings arent burning down, law enforcement is neither fleeing nor overreacting in most cases thus far, etc. Many a sporting event has seen more violence than this.
Anyone who attempts by force to silence the voice of someone they don't agree with is inherently wrong (except forum Mods--they are doing the Lord's work).
PROTESTING Milo speaking is not anti-speech, it's SPEECH.
(referencing earlier riots)
ATTACKING Trump supporters, bused in or beamed in, is not acceptable.
And I'm a pinko liberal, albeit one from Texas that owns guns.
Both sides have a right to make their voice heard, but it must be non-violent, including the police.
If the women's march taught us anything, it's that millions can voice dissent without resulting to violence. The violence blunts the edge of their message.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Man, I just don't know what's going on in the Bay Area anymore. Back in my day, the serious protestors used to escalate by removing some clothing.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the sentiment seems to me to be that because our system produced a President like Donald Trump, who is perceived as akin to a fascist or Nazi, that the system is broken beyond repair, and violent tactics are justified. There's a big dose of Noam Chomsky-style thinking, where the United States is viewed fundamentally as an evil and oppressive imperialistic force that needs to be taken down and replaced by an anarcho-syndicalist utopia. This last sentence is a bit generous though, as I don't think most of the people involved have a worldview more complicated than what was on the Rage Against the Machine album.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: the big key here is that in general this stuff is not widespread, it's localized to a handful of areas that most people already see as political hotspots, and the actual violence is rather limited and tame by the standards of political violence, nobody is being killed or maimed or crippled for life, buildings arent burning down, law enforcement is neither fleeing nor overreacting in most cases thus far, etc. Many a sporting event has seen more violence than this.
Hopefully that remains the case.
I hope your right as well, but the crossover between Trump supporters and gun enthusiasts coupled with Antifas affinity for lower level violence like punching and fireworks seems like a recipe for a tragedy. Hopefully it doesn't take a tragedy for people to understand the truism that violence begets violence.
Easy E wrote: Wasn't this topic why the US Politics thread got locked? Then this thread starts?
I am so confused.
Indeed, we seem to be done with just discussing the riots, and have moved onto the wider discussion of how us politics has got to this point. So we're done here
