UC Berkley Milo Protests Turn Into Riot. Speech Cancelled $100K In Damage

Lethe - with or without the anarchists, were you not suppressing the free speech rights of others at Berkeley? When DeVos was physically blocked from that school, were her rights to free movement in a public area not abridged? When Chaffetz had his town hall meeting shut down by organized "protesters" here his rights to speak and his audience's right to hear not taken away?

O.K. your part of the "revolution" is not smashing windows and hurling molotov cocktails but don't think that you are not creating an environment for them to operate in - and don't think that you are not taking away the rights and freedoms of others.

I have heard some on that side of the "revolution" equating themselves to Rosa Parks and the "freedom riders". Don't kid yourself - an election not going your way is not on a par with segregation.
 

Lethe200 said:
OK, I live in this area. Please don't ascribe the actions of immature anarchists to those who are peaceably protesting liberals. Protest has a very long history in the U.S.; we were founded on it.

These (few) jerks almost always mask themselves because they get a kick out of destruction, period. We have had many peaceful marches over the last year, for example, over the Black Lives Matter issue - UNTIL the masked anarchists started causing trouble at the end of a march. Exact same tactics: breaking windows, throwing rocks, burning trash cans.

When they are arrested, almost 100% of them DO NOT LIVE in the city in which they are trashing. Some of them were coming from 30-50 miles away. Because of the anarchists' actions, the BLM organizers called off any further marches because there was no way to keep these a$$$$ away.

I can assure you that when you live in a city, even as a student, you realize than vandalizing where you live and work, is stupid. We are liberals, but that does not mean we're idiots.

As for the "drama" at UCB, I happen to agree that Yiannopolous should be allowed to speak. I don't agree with him, but yes he has the right to speak in public.

Ian Miller, if you look at his posts, is an overprivileged Caucasian jerk. He isn't interested in righting injustices or promoting racial/social equality; he's a "black bloc" timewaster, a student and by no means a permanent resident or homeowner of Berkeley. The UCB police and FBI are already investigating him, and pretty much everyone (yeah, we all voted for Hillary too) hopes he gets the book thrown at him.
Click to expand...

This Ian Miller?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...nder-investigation-for-participating-in-riot/

Also this Nisa Dang who commented in the Berkeley campus papers has an activist's resume on LinkedIn. A 'political strategist'. Also made an appearance in at least one police protest in Dec 2014 complaining the police threw a grenade near her.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-police-lawsuit-20151124-story.html
 
Last edited:
An interesting article in today's paper. It seems that the book "1984" has had a resurgence of sales due to the concern over Trump's suppression of free speech. And yet that concept is being pushed by the same people who disrupted Republican campaign events, continue to disrupt town halls, political "listening sessions", etc., block the SecEd from access to a school, and back to the topic, caused great damage in order to squash the freedom of speech of a speaker at Berkeley. All this with or without the backing of the thugs with bricks and clubs.

I can't help but wonder of those claiming to be merely innocently expressing their political views really do not understand that they are cannon fodder in a major revolutionary movement - and there is more than the traditional partisanship involved.
 

Ray said:
An interesting article in today's paper. It seems that the book "1984" has had a resurgence of sales due to the concern over Trump's suppression of free speech. And yet that concept is being pushed by the same people who disrupted Republican campaign events, continue to disrupt town halls, political "listening sessions", etc., block the SecEd from access to a school, and back to the topic, caused great damage in order to squash the freedom of speech of a speaker at Berkeley. All this with or without the backing of the thugs with bricks and clubs.

I can't help but wonder of those claiming to be merely innocently expressing their political views really do not understand that they are cannon fodder in a major revolutionary movement - and there is more than the traditional partisanship involved.
Click to expand...
The disrupting ones are not representative of all. The majority are law abiding good citizens. Generalizing them all into a group of "bad people" does not help. I don't see a major revolutionary movement. Seems to be some paranoia about the "radical left".
 
Ruthanne said:
The disrupting ones are not representative of all. The majority are law abiding good citizens. Generalizing them all into a group of "bad people" does not help. I don't see a major revolutionary movement. Seems to be some paranoia about the "radical left".
Click to expand...

No, but what you have to understand is that you are giving them cover for their revolution. Every attack on the legitimately elected President, every post about impeachment, every disruption of an event creates the environment they need to do their thing. Every time (such a at Berkeley) the rights of someone is thwarted, we are one step closer.

Now, the easy (dare I say "lazy") approach is think it's someone else's paranoia. The honest approach is to ask, "What am I enabling, what am I really participating in?".
 
Ray said:
No, but what you have to understand is that you are giving them cover for their revolution. Every attack on the legitimately elected President, every post about impeachment, every disruption of an event creates the environment they need to do their thing. Every time (such a at Berkeley) the rights of someone is thwarted, we are one step closer.

Now, the easy (dare I say "lazy") approach is think it's someone else's paranoia. The honest approach is to ask, "What am I enabling, what am I really participating in?".
Click to expand...
Honestly I am not participating in any of it; I am just a spectator. I still think there is some paranoia about the power of the left in this country. The paranoia: saying it's an easy approach or lazy but it's more the truth than you may be willing to see.
 
Ruthanne said:
Honestly I am not participating in any of it; I am just a spectator. I still think there is some paranoia about the power of the left in this country. The paranoia: saying it's an easy approach or lazy but it's more the truth than you may be willing to see.
Click to expand...

The "you" is generic", nothing personal. As to paranoia - when I see mobs in the street, when I see free speech blocked, when I see people physically attacked for their political beliefs - I see Brown Shirts. And when I see people giving them cover I see either extreme naivete or intentional support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top