WATCH LIVE 7 PM PT: Hurricane Ben Hits Berkeley

a reply to: underwerks

Being against people who are anti-diversity, doesn't make one anti-diversity.

Bit of the pot calling the kettle black though, don't you think?

You want to label him anti-diversity, but in so doing, you are showing an intolerance of all his thoughts which is, in and of itself, an intolerance of a diversity of thought on your part.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: underwerks
While everyone is here signaling their outrage, has anyone bothered to ask themselves why these far right conservative speakers keep selecting Berkeley, the home of liberalism, to hold their rallies at?

Because they're not cowards that hide behind masks? How do you think any place becomes the home of any ideology (anti-diversity), without originally suppressing alternative viewpoints? How do you think minds are changed in the first place?

You go to the source and rattle the cage.

And really, rattle some cages? Do you honestly believe Ben Shapiro or Milo went to Berkeley to convert people to the right? Or is it more likely it's just to cause outrage and build their brand up more?

Here's a crazy idea, it's to speak. You know, the act of which public speakers engage in.

You're acting like they only speak in Berkeley. Both speak all over the country on a regular basis, well over 100 times each in countless cities.

Your sorry act of trying to sway accountability of nutty leftists acting like fools in Berkeley away from Berkeley is pathetic.

You think?

Here's a crazy idea, lets ask ourselves why, since they hold rallies all over the country, they don't try to publicize any of their other rallies as much as they do the ones in Berkeley?

Thanks for the insult.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: growler

So throwing fire bombs and breaking business windows is now free speech?

Not to mention throwing bottles of urine and feces ?

Being an old man , I would advise AntFa calming down a bit. Otherwise , I see a world of hurt possibly coming down on em in the future.
There are better ways of protesting other than violence. I was there in the day.
Hope they dont have to learn their lessons the hard way...Not enjoyable at all

a reply to: ketsuko

That's not how it works and it's a trick that's well past its expiration date. People get to dislike things without having to reject space for them to exist.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Being an old man , I would advise AntFa calming down a bit. Otherwise , I see a world of hurt possibly coming down on em in the future.
There are better ways of protesting other than violence. I was there in the day.
Hope they dont have to learn their lessons the hard way...Not enjoyable at all

I get the impression they do want to know what its like , that's why they are so vocal, these youngens have had it easy, war and violence is glorified on tv so they think its cool.....

a reply to: Kali74

I didn't say you had to like it, only that if you are calling yourselves the very beacons of tolerance and diversity, you allow for its existence alongside other forms of thought.

Remember, tolerance and acceptance are not synonyms, but you are a smart person, and I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

No one is forcing ANTIFA or anyone else to attend Ben's speech. All that they need do is allow him to speak.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Kali74

I didn't say you had to like it, only that if you are calling yourselves the very beacons of tolerance and diversity, you allow for it's existence alongside other forms of thought.

Remember, tolerance and acceptance are not synonyms, but you are a smart person, and I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

Who calls themselves the "beacons of tolerance and diversity"? No one.

It's a tired, stupid argument.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Kali74

I didn't say you had to like it, only that if you are calling yourselves the very beacons of tolerance and diversity, you allow for it's existence alongside other forms of thought.

Remember, tolerance and acceptance are not synonyms, but you are a smart person, and I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

Who calls themselves the "beacons of tolerance and diversity"? No one.

It's a tired, stupid argument.

And therein lies the problem
Let folks have their say. Dont resort to violence to prevent it . Everyone has the right to speak without interruption in the US. So , why isnt AntiFa arranging chances to speak ? Why is their tactics always to use violence to prevent others ?
Get up on stage and prevent their views, Unless they have nothing to offer....

Then you have a problem because ANTIFA is definitely not representing you at all well.

You cannot spend time talking out one side of your mouth about how it's all about creating a society of tolerance and diversity where everyone is included, and then excuse these ANTIFA jackwagons every time they do this crap in an attempt to just stop someone from giving a speech others have to actually pay to listen to.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

Being against people who are anti-diversity, doesn't make one anti-diversity.

Bit of the pot calling the kettle black though, don't you think?

You want to label him anti-diversity, but in so doing, you are showing an intolerance of all his thoughts which is, in and of itself, an intolerance of a diversity of thought on your part.

Not being tolerant to ideologies that preach intolerance, isn't being intolerant. That used to go without saying until the right wing news machine started up before this past election, and now people have adopted that narrative.

And no, I'm not talking about conservatism overall with that statement, just the ideologies of the person speaking in this case. Whether conservatism is intolerant or not depends on the ideas of the person preaching it.

a reply to: underwerks

And just exactly how familiar are you with Ben Shapiro?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Kali74

I didn't say you had to like it, only that if you are calling yourselves the very beacons of tolerance and diversity, you allow for it's existence alongside other forms of thought.

Remember, tolerance and acceptance are not synonyms, but you are a smart person, and I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

Who calls themselves the "beacons of tolerance and diversity"? No one.

It's a tired, stupid argument.

And therein lies the problem
Let folks have their say. Dont resort to violence to prevent it . Everyone has the right to speak without interruption in the US. So , why isnt AntiFa arranging chances to speak ? Why is their tactics always to use violence to prevent others ?
Get up on stage and prevent their views, Unless they have nothing to offer....

I agree with letting folks have "their say" as long as it isn't speech laced with incitement. I don't believe in using violence for political purposes as you well know.

Do they have the "right" to speak without interruption now? Speakers have always faced being shouted down by dissenters ... don't pretend like that just started happening, just like the dissenters realize that they will be asked to leave, escorted off the property, etc.

Well, first of all "ANTIFA" at best is a name for disparate groups of people who have different beliefs and approaches.

Their tactics, according to them, are to prevent fascists from spreading incitement and violence. From what I've seen, the phenomenon of mob mentality takes hold on both "sides."

They do offer their views. There are any number of ANTIFA groups on Twitter if you'd like a sample. Unless you're not really serious.

NO one's excusing "ANTIFA." (Mostly because there's no unified "ANTIFA" to excuse.)

Some folks simply cannot make an argument without dishonesty.

a reply to: Gryphon66

For some people these days, if someone says something they don't like hearing, it's called incitement.

Heck, that guy who shot his coworkers live on the air? One person in his office brought watermelon to work as part of their lunch, and he felt that was racial incitement.

We have traveled so far down the road away from what the person who actually is speaking or acting intends to where what the person who hears the speech feels, that incitement is a pretty weak reason anymore.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
NO one's excusing "ANTIFA." (Mostly because there's no unified "ANTIFA" to excuse.)

Some folks simply cannot make an argument without dishonesty.

Of course, no one exactly condemns them either ...

Oh, but you are right ... we wouldn't want to condemn the wrong group of ANTIFA. Just because some ANTIFA are bad doesn't mean they all are. I mean that group in Portland just threatens to do bad things if the city allows events they don't like. It's OK though, they don't have to do bad stuff because they city usually cancels those events.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

And just exactly how familiar are you with Ben Shapiro?

I've watched him talk quite a few times at the request of some of my conservative friends. And his ideas (I hope) aren't the overall consensus of conservative thought.

I'm really trying not to paint everyone on the right with a Shapiro brush. He comes off as an arrogant, entitled person who has no room to even consider he might be wrong about anything.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

For some people these days, if someone says something they don't like hearing, it's called incitement.

Heck, that guy who shot his coworkers live on the air? One person in his office brought watermelon to work as part of their lunch, and he felt that was racial incitement.

We have traveled so far down the road away from what the person who actually is speaking or acting intends to where what the person who hears the speech feels, that incitement is a pretty weak reason anymore.

And for some other people, incitement to violence is just that ... sort of like what Trump did from the podium in his rallies last summer.

Yes, I know your penchant for using extreme examples as if they were the norm. Just like you harp on and on about these imaginary leftists claiming to be paragons of tolerance.

Incitement has very clear legal standards. Just like assault. We need to be enforcing both.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

And just exactly how familiar are you with Ben Shapiro?

I've watched him talk quite a few times at the request of some of my conservative friends. And his ideas (I hope) aren't the overall consensus of conservative thought.

I'm really trying not to paint everyone on the right with a Shapiro brush. He comes off as an arrogant, entitled person who has no room to even consider he might be wrong about anything.

Huh, funny, Then you he must come off to you like a LOT of leftists I hear and read come off to me.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

For some people these days, if someone says something they don't like hearing, it's called incitement.

Heck, that guy who shot his coworkers live on the air? One person in his office brought watermelon to work as part of their lunch, and he felt that was racial incitement.

We have traveled so far down the road away from what the person who actually is speaking or acting intends to where what the person who hears the speech feels, that incitement is a pretty weak reason anymore.

And for some other people, incitement to violence is just that ... sort of like what Trump did from the podium in his rallies last summer.

Yes, I know your penchant for using extreme examples as if they were the norm. Just like you harp on and on about these imaginary leftists claiming to be paragons of tolerance.

Incitement has very clear legal standards. Just like assault. We need to be enforcing both.

If I use extreme examples, it's to make my intent crystal clear. Some people need help getting the point. If you think I think they're the norm, I can't help your misconception.

So you are admitting now that the left never intended to be tolerant at all? You just use that term to try to brow beat those of us who don't think the way you want us to into either shutting up or adopting the thought line you want us to have?

Thanks for finally just admitting that.