Berkeley "liberals" contra free speech

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

FWIW, I know someone who lives quite near campus. According to her, the violence was perpetrated by a small number of anarchists. Most of the demonstrators were quiet and peaceable.

Which brings up the question of just who those violent anarchists were. Lots of reports of small groups of infiltrators in all kinds of protests, whose sole purpose is to try to invite violence and bring disrepute to the cause--whatever the cause. It's an old tactic. I'd expect the news media--and law enforcement to be a bit more hip to that bag of tricks,

"This university was essentially invaded by more than 100 individuals clad in ninja-like uniforms who were armed and engaged in paramilitary tactics,” Mr. Mogulof said. “They were implementing a very clear plan to engage in violence, disruption ..."

New york times quoting a school official

 

[Toni]

It's almost like most Americans don't know what 'free speech' actually means...

Exactly the problem: They support "Free Speech", so long as it is the kind of speech they like.

Exactly wrong. Protesting a speaker is free speech for the protesters against a paid speaker whom they wish to protest. The speaker had the right to free speech as well. Protesting against someone does not prevent them from exercising their free speech. Hell, little baby Milo has multiple platforms on which he exercises his free (hate) speech pretty often and pretty darn well.

Berkley should not have a)invited him to speak because he is vile or b) cancelled his speaking engagement due to protesters.

 

[untermensche]

It didn't matter because "being a naughty boy" is merely a matter of opinion.

It's male nature. Risk everything for a quickie. I think his voters agreed on this.

The issue is whether he was impeached based on anything real or impeached based merely on the opinions of Republicans.

He was impeached entirely based on opinion.

It was an ugly spectacle.

Much like Trump's talk of locking up Hillary during the campaign. As ugly as is possible.

And as we see complete nonsense. Just like Bill's impeachment.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Berkeley Mess

There are certain strands of critical theory and postmodernist thought which hold that all speech is an exercise of power. On this view, to talk is to coerce. On this view, too argue for or defend social injustice, or even to discuss such ideas in the classroom, is a form of violence.

If you have that view, then of course you’ll think it’s appropriate to use violence to shut down speech you dislike. Of course you’ll believe professors or campus authorities have a duty to silence “bad” speech.

After all, on this view, when you smash windows or call in the authorities, you are not initiating violence against peaceful speakers. Rather, on this view, the speakers are acting violently by speaking, and you are merely using violence in self-defense or in defense of others.

On this view, the liberal defense of free speech is a hegemonic conspiracy, an attempt by white men to rationalize and justify their power over others. Speech is violence. When others talk, they oppress you. When you shut them down, you stop them from oppressing you.

The speech-is-violence view–a view propounded by many hard left faculty in the humanities departments–makes civil discourse a form of war. Speech is a negative-sum game. When others arm themselves with arguments, you arm yourself with sticks and stones.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's male nature. Risk everything for a quickie. I think his voters agreed on this.

its not male nature

Okay, then the male brain went on overdrive.

 

[whichphilosophy]

its not male nature

The WPs have made comments in the past about how wog science hasn't uncovered any useful knowledge about ourselves. The cult of scientology teaches that we are non-corporeal, god-like beings, that our bodies are just "MEST" and not important, and that you can get another one if the body you're using isn't suitable for carrying out your cult's social dominance activities in this sector of the gaLAXy. This life, all personal things, are almost as unimportant as your body, and less important if you're Sea Org. All major research and literature on human behavior is, to a scientologist, a delusional waste of time.

For most humans, learning something new in behavior sciences like the Milgram experiments, for example, changes how you see authority figures and how you see your own behaviors and beliefs in regard to authority figures. Any one of us could have been the subjects who kept upping the electric shocks, but almost none of us would respond the same way in any new, similar situations after learning the premise of the experiments.

So that research not only taught us something significant and useful about ourselves in general, but it's knowledge that to some extent forces self-reflection in the individuals who learn about it. It's like a tiny drop of enlightenment in the world every time someone learns about the Milgram experiments and who is also not a complete moron incapable of making the connection between the research and their own programmed assumptions and reactions.

That's just one example. Of course you already know all this, but I like posting these comments for anyone else who might be reading.

Such a long speech over a quickie.How does this relate to oral sex in the white house and pink hats over Pussygate. Re Milgram you may also be interested in how Pavlov experimented on dogs to see how best it could be applied to teach man to serve the state. I have no idea where you think I don't appreciate science (and engineering) but if that floats your boat go with it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Exactly the problem: They support "Free Speech", so long as it is the kind of speech they like.

Exactly wrong. Protesting a speaker is free speech for the protesters against a paid speaker whom they wish to protest. The speaker had the right to free speech as well. Protesting against someone does not prevent them from exercising their free speech. Hell, little baby Milo has multiple platforms on which he exercises his free (hate) speech pretty often and pretty darn well.

Berkley should not have a)invited him to speak because he is vile or b) cancelled his speaking engagement due to protesters.

It's a logical fallacy if while protest is a civil right it is a tool to suppress free speech. I've been looking at some of his videos. I haven't concluded that he should be actually banned from universities. Certainly if he was heterosexual he wouldn't be getting many dates. He is invited to debate and forward his views so that they can be challenged. This is how free societies work.

All we need now is the politically correct to start burning books.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What if the speech is about shutting down free speech through intimidation and harassment?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What if the speech is about shutting down free speech through intimidation and harassment?

Even then. I would defend even that speech.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What if the speech is about shutting down free speech through intimidation and harassment?

That would be shutting down free speech not free speech. Free speech involves everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

What if the speech is about shutting down free speech through intimidation and harassment?

Even then. I would defend even that speech.

That is not free speech but one party preventing another from free speech. Free speech means both parties are not shut down so we hear all sides.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Maybe I misunderstood Squirrel's post, but I thought she was talking about a speaker making a speech about limiting free speech. The speaker is speaking about how intimidation and harassment could be tactics to do so.

As long as it is only a speaker speaking, I would still defend it even if that is the topic of the speech.

Squirrel isn't saying that the speaker is shutting down speech using those tactics, only speaking about shutting down speech through those tactics.

If the speaker is only speaking about shutting down free speech through those tactics, I will defend even that speech. I won't defend the actions being spoken about, but I will still defend that speech.

 

[Sarpedon]

In more consequential news on the same topic: Trump is renaming the task force on violent extremism to the task force on islamic terrorism. Thus by implication removing white supremacists, who generally kill more americans each year, from the watchdog group's purview.

While the usual whiners come on here to decry an imagined campaign of violence upon them by 'liberals,' actual terrorist groups who have killed hundreds, thousands even of americans are being let off the hook, doubtless by their agents in the administration.

Conservatives repeatedly have argued that money is speech. So students who pay a ton of money on a college should have a voice in who the college gives a free podium to. Of course, Conservatives only believe that their money should have power, not ordinary people's.

 

[dismal]

Conservatives repeatedly have argued that money is speech. So students who pay a ton of money on a college should have a voice in who the college gives a free podium to. Of course, Conservatives only believe that their money should have power, not ordinary people's.

No one actually ever argues a quarter sitting on a desk is speech. The argument you are grossly mischaracterizing is that regulating money spent on speech is regulating speech. Which is an argument that enjoys such a "no shit, Captain Obvious" level of obviousness it must be mischaracterized instead of being directly addressed.

The rest of your argument is equally silly. Student's don't have a right to make decisions at a college because they pay money to go there any more than customers have a right to decide what's on the menu at McDonalds.

And, of course, we are talking about riots and violence to prevent speech here. No one ever has a right to do that, ever. Never, ever, never. If you do that you are indefensibly despicable and it's sad that so-called "liberals" can't seem to get that.

 

[TSwizzle]

Student's don't have a right to make decisions at a college because they pay money to go there any more than customers have a right to decide what's on the menu at McDonalds.

Do they have the right to protest and picket events ? Genuine question, I really don't know.

And, of course, we are talking about riots and violence to prevent speech here. No one ever has a right to do that, ever. Never, ever, never. If you do that you are indefensibly despicable and it's sad that so-called "liberals" can't seem to get that.

I think the Berkeley protest was somewhat infiltrated by an anarchist group which is where the violence came from.

 

[untermensche]

No one actually ever argues a quarter sitting on a desk is speech. The argument you are grossly mischaracterizing is that regulating money spent on speech is regulating speech. Which is an argument that enjoys such a "no shit, Captain Obvious" level of obviousness it must be mischaracterized instead of being directly addressed.

It's an argument that says you have as loud a voice as you can afford.

Which means in the US the majority has NO voice at all.

The entire political process is controlled by a few with great wealth.

It is not "regulating" money. It is eliminating money from the process. Saying you can't spend money on this, like limiting the spending of money to buy heroin.

To create a level playing field.

Something opposed by many who favor the current rigged game.

 

[dismal]

Do they have the right to protest and picket events ? Genuine question, I really don't know.

And, of course, we are talking about riots and violence to prevent speech here. No one ever has a right to do that, ever. Never, ever, never. If you do that you are indefensibly despicable and it's sad that so-called "liberals" can't seem to get that.

I think the Berkeley protest was somewhat infiltrated by an anarchist group which is where the violence came from.

I think people have a right to protest anything but there can be reasonable restrictions on time place and manner.

- - - Updated - - -

No one actually ever argues a quarter sitting on a desk is speech. The argument you are grossly mischaracterizing is that regulating money spent on speech is regulating speech. Which is an argument that enjoys such a "no shit, Captain Obvious" level of obviousness it must be mischaracterized instead of being directly addressed.

It's an argument that says you have as loud a voice as you can afford.

Which means in the US the majority has NO voice at all.

The entire political process is controlled by a few with great wealth.

It is not "regulating" money. It is eliminating money from the process. Saying you can't spend money on this, like limiting the spending of money to buy heroin.

To create a level playing field.

Something opposed by many who favor the current rigged game.

Well, then I guess Trump can sign a law banning newspapers he doesn't like from spending money on ink .

 

[untermensche]

Well, then I guess Trump can sign a law banning newspapers he doesn't like from spending money on ink .

Of course he could.

But that is completely besides the point of both dealing with the corruption of wealth in elections and giving everybody an equal voice.

You do that with campaigns publicly funded.

Bland boring campaigns based on facts.

Not sideshows.

It only harms those who want more than an equal share.

 

[Arctish]

Do they have the right to protest and picket events ? Genuine question, I really don't know.

And, of course, we are talking about riots and violence to prevent speech here. No one ever has a right to do that, ever. Never, ever, never. If you do that you are indefensibly despicable and it's sad that so-called "liberals" can't seem to get that.

I think the Berkeley protest was somewhat infiltrated by an anarchist group which is where the violence came from.

It wasn't just infiltrated, it was totally disrupted.

The Berkeley protest was a peaceful one until the arrival of a group of approximately 100-150 individuals dressed head-to-toe in black and wearing masks. Witnesses say these new arrivals were the ones throwing rocks, smashing things, and starting fires. These masked persons might have been anarchists. They might have been thugs. They might have been Yiannopoulos supporters who wanted to discredit Berkeley liberals by making it seem as though the violence was an attempt by them to silence him. We don't know at this point, but it seems highly unlikely the 1500 people having a peaceful protest up to that point were the instigators, while the arrival of scores of masked rioters was just a coincidence.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK158SmbxO0[/youtube]

While there are people saying "they're not part of us", there are very few condemning it, and more than a few egging it on. All the celebrities cheering on the rioters ... they have a right to say it, but I think what they are saying is disgusting.

Listing Blaire White and Thunderf00t as nazis?

 

[beero1000]

It's almost like most Americans don't know what 'free speech' actually means...

Exactly the problem: They support "Free Speech", so long as it is the kind of speech they like.

Point proved.