UC Berkeley must allow conservatives to speak on campus

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

OK then - let's continue

If somebody feels strongly enough about a class that's being taught - should that person or persons have the right to shut down that class?

I don't know - are they protesting peacefully? Are they trespassing? Are they breaking the law?

Here's the thing. If you feel that way, how about you just don't take the class. If it's a required course suck it up and get through. Are you afraid that your mind is so weak you will be transformed into something you don't want to be? As far as public speakers that offend you, don't go. Why draw more attention to something you disagree with? If you really feel compelled to, organize your own public forum to express your own views. I'd bet there isn't a conservative here at ATS that would try to stop you.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: network dude

If kids can't learn that the world is full of people who might disagree with them and how to navigate through the world knowing that, they won't make it out here.

Does this apply to people like Milo and Coulter? In a perfect world they'd get their stage and about 45 audience members and they would slink away and whine about how misunderstood they are

The trouble is - they aren't misunderstood. Thus - the protests

See, these kids already know they disagree with them. They have something to say about what these people represent

I personally say let these speakers speak, but I'll be goddammed if I don't understand these kid's motivation

Let them protest. Peacefully

It's all included in the 1st amendment.
www.law.cornell.edu...

this ruling seems to preserve that, which I am in full agreement on. At least now, these kids will know that if someone they don't like says something, they will have to find a way to deal with it. Which is the life lesson I mentioned earlier. it's a really important one, and transcends college.

a reply to: Fools

i admit i wasnt ACTUALLY doing the ROFLMAO

but reading that - i now has to hang on to chair

originally posted by: Propagandalf
I like how in the upside-down world of our modern censors, censoring others, disrupting speeches, and even violence is a form of protest and dissent.

Censoring others is free speech!

Didn't you know that?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: network dude

If kids can't learn that the world is full of people who might disagree with them and how to navigate through the world knowing that, they won't make it out here.

Does this apply to people like Milo and Coulter? In a perfect world they'd get their stage and about 45 audience members and they would slink away and whine about how misunderstood they are

The trouble is - they aren't misunderstood. Thus - the protests

See, these kids already know they disagree with them. They have something to say about what these people represent

I personally say let these speakers speak, but I'll be goddammed if I don't understand these kid's motivation

Let them protest. Peacefully

this ruling seems to preserve that, which I am in full agreement on. At least now, these kids will know that if someone they don't like says something, they will have to find a way to deal with it. Which is the life lesson I mentioned earlier. it's a really important one, and transcends college.

But but but what about their sense of entitlement that their feelings allow them to be violent because they are too dumb and triggered to engage in civil discourse?

How are Berkeley professors going to do a complete 180 and tell students that their feelings are irrelevant and that being mature and adult-like is now the expectation?

I think the safe spaces are going to be jammed packed in the coming weeks as reality settles in for them.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: network dude

If kids can't learn that the world is full of people who might disagree with them and how to navigate through the world knowing that, they won't make it out here.

Does this apply to people like Milo and Coulter? In a perfect world they'd get their stage and about 45 audience members and they would slink away and whine about how misunderstood they are

The trouble is - they aren't misunderstood. Thus - the protests

See, these kids already know they disagree with them. They have something to say about what these people represent

I personally say let these speakers speak, but I'll be goddammed if I don't understand these kid's motivation

Let them protest. Peacefully

this ruling seems to preserve that, which I am in full agreement on. At least now, these kids will know that if someone they don't like says something, they will have to find a way to deal with it. Which is the life lesson I mentioned earlier. it's a really important one, and transcends college.

But but but what about their sense of entitlement that their feelings allow them to be violent because they are too dumb and triggered to engage in civil discourse?

How are Berkeley professors going to do a complete 180 and tell students that their feelings are irrelevant and that being mature and adult-like is now the expectation?

I think the safe spaces are going to be jammed packed in the coming weeks as reality settles in for them.

I think it's time to go into the "safe space and puppy rental" business in Berkeley. Therapy puppies, balloons, and soft pillows to scream into. We could make BANK!

originally posted by: Arnie123
Good for YAF, Cali needs an eye opener to reality and if we have to take them to court and chip away at their BS, so be it.

Conservative speakers will have to be escorted into the campus by the Californian National Guard. I'm sure photographs of those will make great front cover pictures for National Geographic.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Propagandalf
I like how in the upside-down world of our modern censors, censoring others, disrupting speeches, and even violence is a form of protest and dissent.

Censoring others is free speech!

Didn't you know that?

That's the lie they're trying to sneak through the customs. They even have to pretend some speech is violence in order to justify their absurd behavior.

a reply to: stormcell

Here's a puzzler for you!

Why ever in the world would a so-called "conservative" want to speak at UC Berkley? That smacks of some Jewish Rabbi wanting to address a Nazi Party rally in 1937. Its utterly ridiculous. And what of the taxpayers who end up footing the bill for the rioting and overtime cop pay?

Its one thing to "stand on principle" but honestly, UC Berkley is just a world unto itself.

originally posted by: olaru12
Everyone should have the right to speak anywhere and make total fools of themselves...It's the American way!!

I agree with you! Just look at the Clintons and Obamas!

a reply to: TonyS

If Jews could have spoken out early enough I strongly believe that either the Holocaust could have been prevented or at least the US may have entered the war sooner.

So speaking out is important even if sometimes it seems ineffective..

Obviously. the far left Marxist Progressive Communistas can not win on a level playing field. This could be devastating for them. Prepare for violence, death threats, and civil disobediance

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: olaru12
Everyone should have the right to speak anywhere and make total fools of themselves...It's the American way!!

I agree with you! Just look at the Clintons and Obamas!

here's some great one's from the twitter in chief....

www.tatler.com...

DJT is fantastic at keeping late nite comedy alive!

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: TonyS

If Jews could have spoken out early enough I strongly believe that either the Holocaust could have been prevented or at least the US may have entered the war sooner.

So speaking out is important even if sometimes it seems ineffective..

If the world had stepped in to stop the genocide and Halocaust of my people, the Armenians, the Jews might have been spared.

Hitler stated " the world did nothing about the Armenians, surely they wont do anything about the Jews

a reply to: Grambler

What could the moral case for censorship possibly be?

It could be something as simple as "they deserved it."

That's the thing about morals... they vary from one person to the next. My morals are not your morals and vice-versa. Ergo, if we abandon the law in favor of morality, we will have neither according to many. As a society, we have many morals in common, but how often do we see even common-place morality disputed on this very board?

I may consider it immoral to steal. You may consider it immoral to steal without 'just cause.' Someone else may consider stealing from a particular store or person or company acceptable because they are "bad people" and don't deserve what they have.

The law says it's wrong to steal, period. For everyone. Thus, everyone is held to the same standard. Using morality, people are held to different standards based on who they are and what they believe. And... did we just come full circle to reality?

TheRedneck

I agree. He is a funny guy. He should go on tv and do an impersonation of Alec Alec Baldwin punching people and getting cuffed by police. Wouldn't that be a hoot!

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: olaru12
Everyone should have the right to speak anywhere and make total fools of themselves...It's the American way!!

I agree with you! Just look at the Clintons and Obamas!

here's some great one's from the twitter in chief....

www.tatler.com...

DJT is fantastic at keeping late nite comedy alive!

originally posted by: visitedbythem
I agree. He is a funny guy. He should go on tv and do an impersonation of Alec Alec Baldwin punching people and getting cuffed by police. Wouldn't that be a hoot!

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: olaru12
Everyone should have the right to speak anywhere and make total fools of themselves...It's the American way!!

I agree with you! Just look at the Clintons and Obamas!

here's some great one's from the twitter in chief....

www.tatler.com...

DJT is fantastic at keeping late nite comedy alive!

Well, he does a bloody good 'Diane Feinstein Lying at the Kavanaugh hearing' impersonation.

Epic in fact, literally had me in stitches.

a reply to: Fools

So the anti-fascist fascists have to start allowing speech by those they don't think have a right to speak? Oh this is good, and it'll go over like a turd in a punch bowl. I love it. Spoiled effing snots.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: jjkenobi
No No No you cannot allow the opposite view point to have any time to share their ideas and platforms. It might influence the indoctrination going on there!!

you're right, just look at how president Putin indoctrinated republicans....

Nothing negative you can say about this without exposing your hypocrisy so you resort to Putin and Republicans?

Gee, how clever.

There is something pretty insane about one group claiming the right to free speech, while protesting to stop others free speech. Anyone who can't see the flaw in that thinking does not want to see it. At that point it's not protest, but an attempt to remove other rights. It's saying we are free, you are not.

In all honesty its the same sort of bigotry as that in the old Jim Crow Laws. Same kind of hate, same kind of belief that they are superior. In the same way racists are shunned, these people should be shunned. Whether burning a flag or a cross on someones lawn, the same mentality is behind it. It's saying we are superior and you are inferior, therefore you do not have the same rights.

Bigots are bigots and equally foul no matter if their target is others race, religion or political ideologies.