Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley

[the]

I think it's absurd to believe that UC Berkeley which is known for being an activist hot spot (which is also why most people want to go there I think) wants to cancel Free Speech week. It's more likely that this was just a media stunt between Milo and the event coordinators. My evidence for this is how much Milo continues to mention his $65,000 and also the kids at the end who are speaking like they are reading a click bait article. "UC Berkeley LIED *exasperation!* saying we didn't make our DEADLINES *gasp!*" - Tomi Lahren look-a-like who may or may not be related to anything here.

Whats the right way to say Antifa anyways? It reminds me of when Bush would at different times pronounce I-Rack/Ear-aq and Sa-Dahm/Soddom. Micro-aggressions as the Millennials would say.

 

[WonkyOracle]

I think it's absurd to believe that UC Berkeley which is known for being an activist hot spot (which is also why most people want to go there I think) wants to cancel Free Speech week. It's more likely that this was just a media stunt between Milo and the event coordinators. My evidence for this is how much Milo continues to mention his $65,000 and also the kids at the end who are speaking like they are reading a click bait article. "UC Berkeley LIED *exasperation!* saying we didn't make our DEADLINES *gasp!*" - Tomi Lahren look-a-like who may or may not be related to anything here.

Whats the right way to say Antifa anyways? It reminds me of when Bush would at different times pronounce I-Rack/Ear-aq and Sa-Dahm/Soddom. Micro-aggressions as the Millennials would say.

 

[Professor Snep]

Even if this was complete bullshit, the trouble is that it seems believable. Milo is a guy who could very well do something like that just for attention, not thinking about the wider ramifications.

Sheer hypocrisy. That would mean any defamation victim could be ipso facto held accountable for any consequences derived from *believable* vilification.
Some would call that victim blaming.

Milo doesn't make up "the right." No matter how much he acts like the most important man on Earth.

Aye, that 'be true. (praise Jesus)

 

[Eventhorizon]

I

Peaceful protestors tend to out number the violent ones. There are always those in a group that want to exploit a situation for their own reasons or those who just aren't competent at dealing with agitators. It's always been that way when two sides are in opposition. So, no. I wouldn't say I think the left are inherently a violent gang, but realistically all it takes are a small group on whatever side to create a problem, and maybe Berkeley is thinking is it even worth it for this troll?

I hope you truly understand what you've just stated here.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think its reasonable to no longer have people speak at college's. Sure it's nice to see the person...in person but it's just not necessary. College's should not be expected to have to shell out huge dollars for security of anyone.

 

[Eventhorizon]

The "privilege of being threatened and assaulted" is something he brought on himself.

Just when I think I have seen the bottom of ignorance I am proven wrong yet again. How deep can it go?

 

[acd]

I

I hope you truly understand what you've just stated here.

I'm not ignorant enough to say someone on the left can't be violent. There are maniacs and extremists in any ideology. What is so hard to believe about that? The extremists on the right can be violent too. There's enough footage of white nationalist protestors running people down with cars (one has even murdered someone this way) and throwing punches at counter protestors and brandishing and firing guns to threaten and intimidate. Don't delude yourself.

This is an ideological struggle and it won't be won with violence or by refusing to let the other side have their say. It would be best to listen and refute, because most everything the alt right says is utter nonsense anyway. It's not that difficult.

 

[Professor Snep]

It would be best to listen [...]. It's not that difficult.

 

[acd]

What are you saying? I speak 'Murican not monkey emojis. Did I dial 1 for monkey emoji!?

 

[Professor Snep]

What are you saying? I speak 'Murican not monkey emojis. Did I dial 1 for monkey emoji!?
/S

 

[ImaginaryBloke]

Even if this was complete bullshit, the trouble is that it seems believable. Milo is a guy who could very well do something like that just for attention, not thinking about the wider ramifications. (That's me being very charitable btw)

There are right wind speakers at universities all over the place. And Harvard have recently cancelled Chelsea Manning over a complaint. Milo doesn't make up "the right." No matter how much he acts like the most important man on Earth.

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

why is there violent opposition for Milo, but not for a majority of speakers on the left?

Also, remember that Trump just tweeted an image of him hitting Clinton (with a golf ball).

Agree with @acd. Milos, Ben, Ann - these guys trade in being provocative and inflammatory. Nothing illegal in that and it doesn't justify crimes committed against them, of which there have been none, I'll add. It was university property that got destroyed when Milos spoke at Berkeley. Milos didn't suffer a single scratch, maybe lost his breath when he ran for it. Little concern he showed about the destruction of public property.

Anyway, there are consequences to hate speech. And just as there are decency laws against stripping down to your birthday suit, there ought to be common decency laws against hate speech. I mean, even if you asked for it and you don't deserve it, it might be better if you just don't ask for it. And, not everyone wants to see you in all your naked glory.

 

[wolly.green]

Also, remember that Trump just tweeted an image of him hitting Clinton (with a golf ball).

Agree with @acd. Milos, Ben, Ann - these guys trade in being provocative and inflammatory. Nothing illegal in that and it doesn't justify crimes committed against them, of which there have been none, I'll add. It was university property that got destroyed when Milos spoke at Berkeley. Milos didn't suffer a single scratch, maybe lost his breath when he ran for it. Little concern he showed about the destruction of public property.

Anyway, there are consequences to hate speech. And just as there are decency laws against stripping down to your birthday suit, there ought to be common decency laws against hate speech. I mean, even if you asked for it and you don't deserve it, it might be better if you just don't ask for it. And, not everyone wants to see you in all your naked glory.

I'll admit now, I agree with a lot of what he says. Not everything though, just a lot. And I disagree when you say he's all hate speech, IMO he's quite rational. In either case, everyone here has made some good points, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

I'll admit now, I agree with a lot of what he says. Not everything though, just a lot. And I disagree when you say he's all hate speech, IMO he's quite rational. In either case, everyone here has made some good points, so I'll just leave it at that.

To each his/her own.

I would prefer not to debate over the exact extent to which Milo's words and behavior constitute hate speech, but will say that enough of it is. Transgender people are not mentally ill. Rape is not consensual. Lady ghostbusters was awesome, thank you very much. I mean, was it ok to cyber-bully Leslie Jones like that?

Is he rational? I think he rationalizes. Is he ethical? Is he compassionate? Is he kind?

 

[Professor Snep]

Also, remember that Trump just tweeted an image of him hitting Clinton (with a golf ball).

It's an exaggeration, the very thought of causing Hillary Clinton to trip over something is ridiculous. It seems Donald Trump also has a notion of that.

I mean, even if you asked for it and you don't deserve it, it might be better if you just don't ask for it.

Consider girls wearing skirts/men in uniforms and cat calling. People who justify that tend to use the same argument.

Is he rational? I think he rationalizes. Is he ethical? Is he compassionate? Is he kind?

He probably offends you, and criticizes your beliefs. If you nevertheless adhere to them, that shouldn't be a problem.

I'll admit now, I agree with a lot of what he says.

I'll admit I don't

 

[acd]

I'll admit now, I agree with a lot of what he says. Not everything though, just a lot. And I disagree when you say he's all hate speech, IMO he's quite rational. In either case, everyone here has made some good points, so I'll just leave it at that.

I'm curious what you agree with and what you think is rational that he says. What are the good points he makes?

 

[wolly.green]

I'm curious what you agree with and what you think is rational that he says. What are the good points he makes?

I'm not saying you are guilty of any of the following. I find myself agreeing with them.

- That our pre-university education system is geared towards females.
- Boys bond by mocking each other. Yet they are demonized for it.
- This idea that all men are inherently rapists is completely and utterly false.
- That we need safe spaces. I'm short, brown and gay in a country full of white heterosexuals, yet I can handle myself just fine.

This is just a few things.

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

It's an exaggeration, the very thought of causing Hillary Clinton to trip over something is ridiculous. It seems Donald Trump also has a notion of that.

- It is a joke, obviously. Funny to many because of the violence. It's not like he tweeted a picture of himself making an astute political point during a debate, and then her tripping. And also, so inappropriate.

Consider girls wearing skirts/men in uniforms and cat calling. People who justify that tend to use the same argument.

- There are similarities, except women wearing skirts are not be trying to be provocative. Milo is definitely trying to be provocative. So, the analogy is more like (I'm going to use men here) a man walks into a bar and starts stripping his clothes off. People might laugh when it's his shirt, but when he gets down to his undies, some are going to be very uncomfortable and will protest, and then finally when he's naked, that's breaking the law. I'm saying there needs to be a law like that when it come to hate speech.

He probably offends you, and criticizes your beliefs. If you nevertheless adhere to them, that shouldn't be a problem.

- True, and I literally just don't believe him.

I'll admit I don't

- I don't agree with his ideas either.

 

[Happy Phantom]

He is a mentally fucked up individual who appeals to people with similar personality disorders. He needs cognitive therapy asap.

 

[the]

Peaceful protestors tend to out number the violent ones. There are always those in a group that want to exploit a situation for their own reasons or those who just aren't competent at dealing with agitators. It's always been that way when two sides are in opposition. So, no. I wouldn't say I think the left are inherently a violent gang, but realistically all it takes are a small group on whatever side to create a problem, and maybe Berkeley is thinking is it even worth it for this troll?

And what is wrong with being violent anyway? Thats how this beautiful country was founded... by a rebellious sect of christo-polotical agitators.

Now see when I write christo-political, its just like the word judeo-christian which lends itself to me being mentally superior, aka right, for you idiots out there.