Anyone else not "get" the protest/march mentality?

[Unique User]

If I was wealthy and power hungry I'd spend some chump change to have someone buy a few poor plebs to blend in to peaceful protests to smash and burn shit up for me.  I'm not saying this is always the case, it's just what I'd do.

Beyond this possibility, realize that given a large enough protest there will invariably be a dozen super-cool 17 year old Anarcho-nilists who want to 'burn down the system' because their parents won't let them road trip to Lalapolooza this year.

Will this 0.00001% throw rocks through the windows of a Starbuck?
Yes.

Will alt-right outlets loop the same 4 seconds of footage of a window breaking continuously for 24 hours while calling the protest a 'riot' and laugh at how 'libtards are burning down the country'?
Also, Yes.

Seemed to happen at Berkley tonight: Violent protests shut down speech at UC Berkley

Exactly what I thought.  I'm going to a protest Feb 4th or Feb 11th in Raleigh, or maybe both and this has me a bit nervous. 

[Kris]

If I was wealthy and power hungry I'd spend some chump change to have someone buy a few poor plebs to blend in to peaceful protests to smash and burn shit up for me.  I'm not saying this is always the case, it's just what I'd do.

Beyond this possibility, realize that given a large enough protest there will invariably be a dozen super-cool 17 year old Anarcho-nilists who want to 'burn down the system' because their parents won't let them road trip to Lalapolooza this year.

Will this 0.00001% throw rocks through the windows of a Starbuck?
Yes.

Will alt-right outlets loop the same 4 seconds of footage of a window breaking continuously for 24 hours while calling the protest a 'riot' and laugh at how 'libtards are burning down the country'?
Also, Yes.

Seemed to happen at Berkley tonight: Violent protests shut down speech at UC Berkley

My understanding from a friend who lived in that area for years is that there's a small number of idiot anarchists that show up to every protest to smash and burn things. Apparently, it's real work to have a peaceful protest there because of those assholes.

So again, let's be aware of our tendencies to make sweeping generalizations to tar everyone with the same brush, which the media actively encourages with their coverage.

[golden1]

Yep, read the Wong article Kris posted regarding protesters.  Those dumb fucks who burnt down Berkeley are going to kill the movement before it takes off at this rate.  This is what Milo wanted, to look like a poor persecuted minority.    Nice going assholes. 

[Gal2016]

The WH just removed the judicial branch from its website. Do you see the point of the march yet?

TBH, I think this is more a case of incompetent Trump transition IT folks.  The transition team creates a new White House webpage and it goes live at the moment of inauguration.  Most times, the new team takes most of the resources and just copies them over.  It seems Trump's team was a bit lazy and didn't do much work.  A lot of information is missing or filled with placeholders.  I'm pretty sure that is what this case is.  Not so much sinister stuff, just rank incompetence.

Trump has a poor record on following the rule of law, and the judges (along with Congress) are pretty much the only people who can put limits on what he does for the next four years.  It's premature to think "all is well" on how Trump will behave towards the judicial branch.

"Trump has a poor record on following the rule of law" ... based on what, his 2-3 weeks in office?  That just made me laugh a little.

[Unique User]

The WH just removed the judicial branch from its website. Do you see the point of the march yet?

TBH, I think this is more a case of incompetent Trump transition IT folks.  The transition team creates a new White House webpage and it goes live at the moment of inauguration.  Most times, the new team takes most of the resources and just copies them over.  It seems Trump's team was a bit lazy and didn't do much work.  A lot of information is missing or filled with placeholders.  I'm pretty sure that is what this case is.  Not so much sinister stuff, just rank incompetence.

Trump has a poor record on following the rule of law, and the judges (along with Congress) are pretty much the only people who can put limits on what he does for the next four years.  It's premature to think "all is well" on how Trump will behave towards the judicial branch.

"Trump has a poor record on following the rule of law" ... based on what, his 2-3 weeks in office?  That just made me laugh a little.

Your posts always make me smile, but then of course I'm an out of touch liberal. As everyone else understood, Trump has a poor record of following the law based on his entire adult life, not just the last 2-3 weeks in office. 

[golden1]

"Trump has a poor record on following the rule of law" ... based on what, his 2-3 weeks in office?  That just made me laugh a little.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

You aren't even trying anymore, are you? 

[Metric Mouse]

My understanding from a friend who lived in that area for years is that there's a small number of idiot anarchists that show up to every protest to smash and burn things. Apparently, it's real work to have a peaceful protest there because of those assholes.

So again, let's be aware of our tendencies to make sweeping generalizations to tar everyone with the same brush, which the media actively encourages with their coverage.

While I am generally on the side of protesters using their rights to free speech, and understand often there is a small minority that engages in this type of violent behavior to stop others from exercising their rights, from the reports of people on the ground that i have known for a long time, this was not the case here. The mood was generally violent and destructive, intent on stopping the speech anyway they could.  This is nothing like the amazing peaceful marches in the past month, which is why I brought it up. Good job by law enforcement for not escalating things; it sounds as if they showed real restraint in a very chaotic situation.

[Kris]

My understanding from a friend who lived in that area for years is that there's a small number of idiot anarchists that show up to every protest to smash and burn things. Apparently, it's real work to have a peaceful protest there because of those assholes.

So again, let's be aware of our tendencies to make sweeping generalizations to tar everyone with the same brush, which the media actively encourages with their coverage.

While I am generally on the side of protesters using their rights to free speech, and understand often there is a small minority that engages in this type of violent behavior to stop others from exercising their rights, from the reports of people on the ground that i have known for a long time, this was not the case here. The mood was generally violent and destructive, intent on stopping the speech anyway they could.  This is nothing like the amazing peaceful marches in the past month, which is why I brought it up. Good job by law enforcement for not escalating things; it sounds as if they showed real restraint in a very chaotic situation.

Well, neither of us was there, so I guess we both have anecdotal information.

[Metric Mouse]

My understanding from a friend who lived in that area for years is that there's a small number of idiot anarchists that show up to every protest to smash and burn things. Apparently, it's real work to have a peaceful protest there because of those assholes.

So again, let's be aware of our tendencies to make sweeping generalizations to tar everyone with the same brush, which the media actively encourages with their coverage.

While I am generally on the side of protesters using their rights to free speech, and understand often there is a small minority that engages in this type of violent behavior to stop others from exercising their rights, from the reports of people on the ground that i have known for a long time, this was not the case here. The mood was generally violent and destructive, intent on stopping the speech anyway they could.  This is nothing like the amazing peaceful marches in the past month, which is why I brought it up. Good job by law enforcement for not escalating things; it sounds as if they showed real restraint in a very chaotic situation.

Well, neither of us was there, so I guess we both have anecdotal information.

Well, you know, that, and dozens of video feeds and statements from persons who were there.

[Lagom]

My understanding from a friend who lived in that area for years is that there's a small number of idiot anarchists that show up to every protest to smash and burn things. Apparently, it's real work to have a peaceful protest there because of those assholes.

So again, let's be aware of our tendencies to make sweeping generalizations to tar everyone with the same brush, which the media actively encourages with their coverage.

While I am generally on the side of protesters using their rights to free speech, and understand often there is a small minority that engages in this type of violent behavior to stop others from exercising their rights, from the reports of people on the ground that i have known for a long time, this was not the case here. The mood was generally violent and destructive, intent on stopping the speech anyway they could.  This is nothing like the amazing peaceful marches in the past month, which is why I brought it up. Good job by law enforcement for not escalating things; it sounds as if they showed real restraint in a very chaotic situation.

Well, neither of us was there, so I guess we both have anecdotal information.

Well, you know, that, and dozens of video feeds and statements from persons who were there.

The fact remains that this was an isolated incident and unrelated in pretty much every meaningful way to the broader currents going on right now. To focus on it as anything other than an example of assholes being assholes is disingenuous to say the least. Now we even have Trump threatening to withhold federal grant money from the UC system, which is especially stupid because they're the ones that allowed that nut job to come speak in the first place.

[Kris]

My understanding from a friend who lived in that area for years is that there's a small number of idiot anarchists that show up to every protest to smash and burn things. Apparently, it's real work to have a peaceful protest there because of those assholes.

So again, let's be aware of our tendencies to make sweeping generalizations to tar everyone with the same brush, which the media actively encourages with their coverage.

While I am generally on the side of protesters using their rights to free speech, and understand often there is a small minority that engages in this type of violent behavior to stop others from exercising their rights, from the reports of people on the ground that i have known for a long time, this was not the case here. The mood was generally violent and destructive, intent on stopping the speech anyway they could.  This is nothing like the amazing peaceful marches in the past month, which is why I brought it up. Good job by law enforcement for not escalating things; it sounds as if they showed real restraint in a very chaotic situation.

Well, neither of us was there, so I guess we both have anecdotal information.

Well, you know, that, and dozens of video feeds and statements from persons who were there.

Having been at protests where videos of the event are manipulated to make it look as though things were happening that weren't -- as well as people giving very selective versions of events... I think it's pretty easy to tell yourself that what you "see" is the true, only version of events when in fact it's been "seen" for you.

I'm not saying there weren't people who did those things. I'm saying that I have watched news accounts of events I've been involved in that were quite frankly shocking. I hesitate to use the word "lying," but it wasn't far off. And again, it doesn't take more than a few determined people to change a  demonstration into a "riot."

You speak of the "mood" above as though you were there. Which you admit you were not. "Mood" is one of those words that is used to convey experiential truth, a "general" attitude, though in truth it is quite slippery and inexact. You also use the word "intent." Same thing. Persuasive on the surface, perhaps. But neither is evidence. They are feelings when used in that way, used to attribute generality to many people and turn a crowd into one being of the same mind. I am generally suspicious of those kinds of tactics or argumentation, especially when used by someone who was not actually there.

[Lagom]

This is actually a pretty good piece by Glenn Beck on the protest. That guy has come a long way in his thinking over the past few years:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/02/02/both-the-uc-berkeley-anarchists-and-milo-yiannopoulos-are-despicable-but-i-stand-with-one/

I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with the majority of his arguments.

[Metric Mouse]

My understanding from a friend who lived in that area for years is that there's a small number of idiot anarchists that show up to every protest to smash and burn things. Apparently, it's real work to have a peaceful protest there because of those assholes.

So again, let's be aware of our tendencies to make sweeping generalizations to tar everyone with the same brush, which the media actively encourages with their coverage.

While I am generally on the side of protesters using their rights to free speech, and understand often there is a small minority that engages in this type of violent behavior to stop others from exercising their rights, from the reports of people on the ground that i have known for a long time, this was not the case here. The mood was generally violent and destructive, intent on stopping the speech anyway they could.  This is nothing like the amazing peaceful marches in the past month, which is why I brought it up. Good job by law enforcement for not escalating things; it sounds as if they showed real restraint in a very chaotic situation.

Well, neither of us was there, so I guess we both have anecdotal information.

Well, you know, that, and dozens of video feeds and statements from persons who were there.

Having been at protests where videos of the event are manipulated to make it look as though things were happening that weren't -- as well as people giving very selective versions of events... I think it's pretty easy to tell yourself that what you "see" is the true, only version of events when in fact it's been "seen" for you.

I'm not saying there weren't people who did those things. I'm saying that I have watched news accounts of events I've been involved in that were quite frankly shocking. I hesitate to use the word "lying," but it wasn't far off. And again, it doesn't take more than a few determined people to change a  demonstration into a "riot."

You speak of the "mood" above as though you were there. Which you admit you were not. "Mood" is one of those words that is used to convey experiential truth, a "general" attitude, though in truth it is quite slippery and inexact. You also use the word "intent." Same thing. Persuasive on the surface, perhaps. But neither is evidence. They are feelings when used in that way, used to attribute generality to many people and turn a crowd into one being of the same mind. I am generally suspicious of those kinds of tactics or argumentation, especially when used by someone who was not actually there.

That's fine that you feel that way. I will take the statements and vidoes of people i know on the ground into account while forming my opinion. I will give some, though markedly less, weight, to the statements of people who lived there for a long time but were not at the events in question. While feeling and mood are not evidence, video feeds offer at least some clear, if incomplete, picture of what occured. To state that we can't know objective truth without experiencing the events ourselves is flawed in the fact that even first hand accounts are often terribly limited in their scope and so prone to errors they can be  quite often considered unreliable. If complete knowledge of the event is required to form any opinion, then the best way to judge an event is after the fact from a compilation of information, to avoid classic errors in human perception. I think that is a bar that that is set too high, and trust that reasonable people can derive useful context when presented with information from a variety of sources.

The entire point of this was to point out that this did not seem at all like the other protests that have occured recently, as backed up by video evidence and reports from the ground.  To say it was unrelated in any way i think is a stretch for anyone who was not at all of the recent protests and has the same slanted information as everyone else to use for comparison. I mean, who realky knows?

[Metric Mouse]

This is actually a pretty good piece by Glenn Beck on the protest. That guy has come a long way in his thinking over the past few years:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/02/02/both-the-uc-berkeley-anarchists-and-milo-yiannopoulos-are-despicable-but-i-stand-with-one/

I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with the majority of his arguments.

Interesting article. I think the last two paragraphs were the most in line with my personal views, and articulated well, to boot.

[Kris]

My understanding from a friend who lived in that area for years is that there's a small number of idiot anarchists that show up to every protest to smash and burn things. Apparently, it's real work to have a peaceful protest there because of those assholes.

So again, let's be aware of our tendencies to make sweeping generalizations to tar everyone with the same brush, which the media actively encourages with their coverage.

While I am generally on the side of protesters using their rights to free speech, and understand often there is a small minority that engages in this type of violent behavior to stop others from exercising their rights, from the reports of people on the ground that i have known for a long time, this was not the case here. The mood was generally violent and destructive, intent on stopping the speech anyway they could.  This is nothing like the amazing peaceful marches in the past month, which is why I brought it up. Good job by law enforcement for not escalating things; it sounds as if they showed real restraint in a very chaotic situation.

Well, neither of us was there, so I guess we both have anecdotal information.

Well, you know, that, and dozens of video feeds and statements from persons who were there.

Having been at protests where videos of the event are manipulated to make it look as though things were happening that weren't -- as well as people giving very selective versions of events... I think it's pretty easy to tell yourself that what you "see" is the true, only version of events when in fact it's been "seen" for you.

I'm not saying there weren't people who did those things. I'm saying that I have watched news accounts of events I've been involved in that were quite frankly shocking. I hesitate to use the word "lying," but it wasn't far off. And again, it doesn't take more than a few determined people to change a  demonstration into a "riot."

You speak of the "mood" above as though you were there. Which you admit you were not. "Mood" is one of those words that is used to convey experiential truth, a "general" attitude, though in truth it is quite slippery and inexact. You also use the word "intent." Same thing. Persuasive on the surface, perhaps. But neither is evidence. They are feelings when used in that way, used to attribute generality to many people and turn a crowd into one being of the same mind. I am generally suspicious of those kinds of tactics or argumentation, especially when used by someone who was not actually there.

That's fine that you feel that way. I will take the statements and vidoes of people i know on the ground into account while forming my opinion. I will give some, though markedly less, weight, to the statements of people who lived there for a long time but were not at the events in question. While feeling and mood are not evidence, video feeds offer at least some clear, if incomplete, picture of what occured. To state that we can't know objective truth without experiencing the events ourselves is flawed in the fact that even first hand accounts are often terribly limited in their scope and so prone to errors they can be  quite often considered unreliable. If complete knowledge of the event is required to form any opinion, then the best way to judge an event is after the fact from a compilation of information, to avoid classic errors in human perception. I think that is a bar that that is set too high, and trust that reasonable people can derive useful context when presented with information from a variety of sources.

The entire point of this was to point out that this did not seem at all like the other protests that have occured recently, as backed up by video evidence and reports from the ground.  To say it was unrelated in any way i think is a stretch for anyone who was not at all of the recent protests and has the same slanted information as everyone else to use for comparison. I mean, who realky knows?

Here is another person who was there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

[Metric Mouse]

Here is another person who was there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

Thank you for sharing.

[MasterStache]

Here is another person who was there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

Thank you for sharing.

I briefly read an article where a UC Berkeley rep described the demonstration as peaceful until a couple or 3 "knuckleheads" (my word) showed up and started breaking things and lighting a fire. Just an anecdote.

[GuitarStv]

This is actually a pretty good piece by Glenn Beck on the protest. That guy has come a long way in his thinking over the past few years:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/02/02/both-the-uc-berkeley-anarchists-and-milo-yiannopoulos-are-despicable-but-i-stand-with-one/

I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with the majority of his arguments.

Interesting article. I think the last two paragraphs were the most in line with my personal views, and articulated well, to boot.

I liked the part where Beck brags about all the nazi memorabilia his 'friend' has.

[Gin1984]

So of the people that were arrested, we know they were not students.  Sure sounds like the students were the violent ones, right.....
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/
Two Berkeley College Republicans "were attacked while conducting an interview" on the campus on Thursday, UC Berkeley also said in a prepared statement. The attackers, who were not affiliated with the university, were taken into custody by UC Berkeley police.

[llorona]

What a coincidence that right after the UC Berkeley event, Breitbart began selling "free speech is burning" t-shirts, replete with a popup ad on their home page.
https://store.breitbart.com/collections/all-products/products/free-speech-is-burning-t-shirt

[Metric Mouse]

What a coincidence that right after the UC Berkeley event, Breitbart began selling "free speech is burning" t-shirts, replete with a popup ad on their home page.
https://store.breitbart.com/collections/all-products/products/free-speech-is-burning-t-shirt

While I don't see this as grossly inaccurate, considering the events that transpired. Whether this plays into Milo's and Brietbat's narrative is probably an unfortunate side effect.  Violence often has those.

[calimom]

Donald Trump trying to de-fund UC Berkeley over this is like taking your kids' allowance away because some random neighborhood thugs that they don't know came came over and set your car on fire.

[Metric Mouse]

Donald Trump trying to de-fund UC Berkeley over this is like taking your kids' allowance away because some random neighborhood thugs that they don't know came came over and set your car on fire.

Protecting free speech is a serious thing. Not sure defunding a university for responding the way they did and failing to control the situation is the best answer. I'm sure there are more positive actions that could be taken to stand up for the first amendment.

[calimom]

But what's known is that the masked, violent fire-setting protestors were NOT UC Berkeley students. So taking funding from the university is an empty gesture by The Dictator.

And this was not a surprising outcome in any case. Milo Yiannopoulos's speech was cancelled at UC Davis. Yes, it's great to protect free speech. It's also good to know your audience so you won't be surprised when the inevitable happens.

[Unique User]

But what's known is that the masked, violent fire-setting protestors were NOT UC Berkeley students. So taking funding from the university is an empty gesture by The Dictator.

And this was not a surprising outcome in any case. Milo Yiannopoulos's speech was cancelled at UC Davis. Yes, it's great to protect free speech. It's also good to know your audience so you won't be surprised when the inevitable happens.

But, the echo chamber that is Fox, did not correct or post that it was not UC Berkeley students.  And a Michigan GOP official took to twitter to state that perhaps another Kent State is needed.  Without clarification from the right, including the WH, there could be many more people that think this way. 

[Another Reader]

Berkeley was a great place in the 1950's and 1960's.  Nice college town with some very high level intellects at UC.  At least it was until the demonstrations became ways to blow off steam in the late 60's.  People's Park comes to mind as an example.  Once hostility, arrogance and appeasement of every little perceived slight by the City government took over, the place went to hell in a hurry.  Nothing has improved.  You can't get plate glass insurance in the commercial areas of Berkeley or Oakland for a reason.  The current players are notorious, hence the level of coverage.

[Metric Mouse]

And this was not a surprising outcome in any case. Milo Yiannopoulos's speech was cancelled at UC Davis. Yes, it's great to protect free speech. It's also good to know your audience so you won't be surprised when the inevitable happens.

I think that this is the sentiment of the other side .  The university should have known its audience and taken more proactive steps to protect free speech, as unpopular as it might be.

[MonkeyJenga]

And this was not a surprising outcome in any case. Milo Yiannopoulos's speech was cancelled at UC Davis. Yes, it's great to protect free speech. It's also good to know your audience so you won't be surprised when the inevitable happens.

I think that this is the sentiment of the other side .  The university should have known its audience and taken more proactive steps to protect free speech, as unpopular as it might be.

Interesting statement by UC Berkeley that addresses some of this: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-yiannopoulos/

The university itself wasn't actually the host, it was a student group, Berkeley College Republicans. Apparently this makes a legal difference in who's responsible. Coordination was done with police to provide security. UCB put out statements emphasizing its commitment to free speech even when you find it vile. They communicated with BCR that protests were planned. The audience was students, and the violence doesn't seem to have been perpetrated by students.

This sometime tension between rights and values is at the heart of the current controversy concerning the planned visit to Berkeley of Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been invited to speak on campus by one of our registered campus organizations, the Berkeley College Republicans (BCR). Like all student organizations, the BCR is a separate legal entity from the university, and it is technically the BCR, and not the university, that is the host of this upcoming event.

[...]

As part of the defense of this crucial right, we have treated the BCR’s efforts to hold the Yiannopoulos event exactly as we would that of any other student group. Since the event was announced, staff from our Student Affairs office, as well as officers from the University of California Police Department (UCPD), have worked, as per policy and standard practice, with the BCR to ensure the event goes as planned, and to provide for the safety and security of those who attend, as well as those who will choose to protest Yiannopoulos’s appearance in a lawful manner.

Like all sponsors of similar events, BCR will be required to reimburse the university for the cost of basic event security. Law enforcement professionals in the UCPD have also explained to the BCR that, consistent with legal requirements, security charges were calculated based on neutral, objective criteria having nothing to do with the speaker’s perspectives, prior conduct on other campuses and/or expected protests by those who stand in opposition to his beliefs, rhetoric and behavior.

In addition, however, we have also clearly communicated to the BCR that we regard Yiannopoulos’s act as at odds with the values of this campus. We have emphasized to them that with their autonomy and independence comes a moral responsibility for the consequences of their words, actions, events and invitations – and those of their guest. We have made sure they are aware of how Yiannopoulos has conducted himself at prior events at other universities, and we have explained that his rhetoric is likely to be deeply upsetting and perceived as threatening by some of their fellow students and members of our campus community. Our student groups enjoy the right to invite whomever they wish to speak on campus, but we urge them to consider whether exercising that right in a manner that might unleash harmful attacks on fellow students and other members of the community is consistent with their own and with our community’s values.

Finally, we have also made the BCR aware that some of those who are opposed to Yiannopoulos’s perspectives and conduct have vowed to mount a substantial protest against his presence on our campus. UCPD has been directed to maintain public safety and to do what it can to prevent disruptions and preserve order. It should be noted that the anticipated cost of those additional preparations and measures will be borne entirely by the campus, and will far exceed the basic security costs that are the responsibility of the hosting organization. We will not stand idly by while laws or university policies are violated, no matter who the perpetrators are.

[LMBB]

Just popped in to say that a bill was introduced last evening that would eliminate the EPA.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861

I am participating in the March for Science on Earth Day. I am a scientist. I've never marched before, and I don't view it as a matter of crying over not getting what I want. Mr. Trump has publicly claimed that vaccines cause autism and is apparently considering a prominent anti-vaxxer to lead a committee on vaccine safety. Children's lives are at stake. He plans to withdraw from the Paris Climate agreement and his executive actions are advancing the DAPL and Keystone XL projects. With republican controlled house and senate, I fear that sexually transmitted diseases research, gun violence, climate change, and other politically sensitive research topics will likely go under gag order (again). I oppose these actions and I intend to make it known through as many channels as possible. I think that science should live apart from politics, free from influence of a particular agenda. We can debate what to do about something, but scientific facts shouldn't depend on who is in charge.

I don't believe that I should only be allowed to make my voice heard every 2 years with a vote. And a huge crowd in DC is a lot harder to ignore than a voice or e-mail inbox that some intern probably periodically deletes. I have a job, I'm not a millennial nor am I particularly sensitive. I never condone violence against people or property and I respect law enforcement. Let's stop painting each other with such broad strokes. I imagine that there are as many different reasons to march as there are people marching.

For a nice antidote to this thread, go check out the one about which issues we agree with the other party on. It's actually quite refreshing and a great reminder that we have a lot more common ground than we think. These are difficult issues to discuss. We all care about the future of this country. That's a very powerful thing to share.

[Metric Mouse]

Interesting statement by UC Berkeley that addresses some of this: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-yiannopoulos/

Thank you for sharing. I had not seen this.

[ariapluscat]

If you haven't noticed, the protests are mostly targeted and specific.  The women's march was less so, and more to demonstrate the vast numbers of people who oppose Trump as a president, but since then, most of the protests are targeted to specific EO.  I haven't actually heard of anyone blocking traffic. 

If you think this is inconvenient, just wait until a general strike happens.  If this crap keeps up, it's a real possibility.  But please, just disregard the protesters and their motives and objectives.  I drink it in like sweet, sweet nectar.

I always hear it as generic protests against Trump, so maybe it's an issue of coverage over simplifying?

Signs like Fuck Trump and Love Conquers Hate don't inform is all I am saying.  When protesters are interviewed and say they're against inequality I am left saying okay, what does that mean specifically?

I would suggest more reasoned and specific responses have affected change more so than blanket statements.  That is all.

At least my local protesters blocked off a bridge one afternoon.  I made arrangements to not be in the area so it wasn't a problem.  It's not the end of the world but there are medical couriers and people like that who need to get places.  I have heard complaints of similar things from social media contacts in other locales.

If there's a general strike, there's a general strike.  I have to go to work regardless.

i was at the women's march in boston. as always with large marches, there were ambulances and emergency staff on site before people arrive. an ambulance needed to leave while thousands of ppl were gathered at the commons so people moved aside. i don't think the movement of the ambulance was much slower than if there were cars during a busy time. boston ems said there were no issues on the day of the march. there are always going to be major events where roads are blocked off; just this week we had several weird days in boston for football. football happens to be a thing i just don't care about, but i'm glad ppl were able to have some fun. i didn't mock my coworkers who went to watch the livestream of the parade for blocking fire trucks or my college friends who went to the parade in person for preventing ems.

i think it would be helpful to consider why this concern is often raised for peoples' protests but not for other events that slow traffic or require emergency services to utilize their planned re-routes...

[ariapluscat]

Interesting statement by UC Berkeley that addresses some of this: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-yiannopoulos/

*screaming*

[Miss Piggy]

Interesting statement by UC Berkeley that addresses some of this: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-yiannopoulos/

*screaming*

Why? I thought what he said was pretty "on target" from a free speech perspective. (I agree that most of what this guy would have said would have been offensive to many people, but that doesn't matter. He has the right to say it, and he was invited to campus by a student group.)

The part of his message that bothers me is this: "Although we urge anyone who is concerned about being targeted by Mr. Yiannopoulos to consider whether there is any value in attending this event, we stand ready to provide resources and support to our community members who may be adversely affected by his words and actions on the stage (we will provide more detail about these resources in a subsequent message)."  This is typical of today's college campuses--safe zones, trigger warnings, and general pussification of young adults who aren't encourage to think critically for themselves. Shit. Let them hear the offensive stuff. Let them get pissed off about it. Let them face the reality that some people, many people, think differently from them. And encourage them to think about how they can do something about it in mature, intelligent ways.

I actually prefer the University of Chicago's more adult approach: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/us/university-of-chicago-trigger-warnings-safe-spaces/

[MonkeyJenga]

The part of his message that bothers me is this: "Although we urge anyone who is concerned about being targeted by Mr. Yiannopoulos to consider whether there is any value in attending this event, we stand ready to provide resources and support to our community members who may be adversely affected by his words and actions on the stage (we will provide more detail about these resources in a subsequent message)."  This is typical of today's college campuses--safe zones, trigger warnings, and general pussification of young adults who aren't encourage to think critically for themselves. Shit. Let them hear the offensive stuff. Let them get pissed off about it. Let them face the reality that some people, many people, think differently from them. And encourage them to think about how they can do something about it in mature, intelligent ways.

I think what you want is what he was getting at. I read it as encouraging people to go even if they were afraid of being triggered or something, because there were campus supports after if they needed it. That sentence is confusing, though. Freaking elites and their convoluted sentence construction. Hemingway that shit!

As well, the "resources and support" could well be conversation, critical thinking, and brainstorming ways to effect change.

It's not like he said they were offering hot chocolate and blankies. Although I wouldn't mind some hot chocolate myself right now. And a blankie, actually. We're supposed to get up to 10 inches of snow tomorrow. Can someone please trigger warning me so UC Berkeley can airlift me hot cocoa and a blanket?

[Cranberries]

The part of his message that bothers me is this: "Although we urge anyone who is concerned about being targeted by Mr. Yiannopoulos to consider whether there is any value in attending this event, we stand ready to provide resources and support to our community members who may be adversely affected by his words and actions on the stage (we will provide more detail about these resources in a subsequent message)."  This is typical of today's college campuses--safe zones, trigger warnings, and general pussification of young adults who aren't encourage to think critically for themselves. Shit. Let them hear the offensive stuff. Let them get pissed off about it. Let them face the reality that some people, many people, think differently from them. And encourage them to think about how they can do something about it in mature, intelligent ways.

As well, the "resources and support" could well be conversation, critical thinking, and brainstorming ways to effect change.

Yiannopoulos has a history of calling out vulnerable people in the audience by name and encouraging his fans to doxx them. My assumption reading this is that "resources and support" would be everything up to legal representation, bodyguards, and a couch in someone else's home if you start getting credible death threats.

[MonkeyJenga]

The part of his message that bothers me is this: "Although we urge anyone who is concerned about being targeted by Mr. Yiannopoulos to consider whether there is any value in attending this event, we stand ready to provide resources and support to our community members who may be adversely affected by his words and actions on the stage (we will provide more detail about these resources in a subsequent message)."  This is typical of today's college campuses--safe zones, trigger warnings, and general pussification of young adults who aren't encourage to think critically for themselves. Shit. Let them hear the offensive stuff. Let them get pissed off about it. Let them face the reality that some people, many people, think differently from them. And encourage them to think about how they can do something about it in mature, intelligent ways.

As well, the "resources and support" could well be conversation, critical thinking, and brainstorming ways to effect change.

Yiannopoulos has a history of calling out vulnerable people in the audience by name and encouraging his fans to doxx them. My assumption reading this is that "resources and support" would be everything up to legal representation, bodyguards, and a couch in someone else's home if you start getting credible death threats.

Ugh, really? I don't know much about the guy.

[Gin1984]

The part of his message that bothers me is this: "Although we urge anyone who is concerned about being targeted by Mr. Yiannopoulos to consider whether there is any value in attending this event, we stand ready to provide resources and support to our community members who may be adversely affected by his words and actions on the stage (we will provide more detail about these resources in a subsequent message)."  This is typical of today's college campuses--safe zones, trigger warnings, and general pussification of young adults who aren't encourage to think critically for themselves. Shit. Let them hear the offensive stuff. Let them get pissed off about it. Let them face the reality that some people, many people, think differently from them. And encourage them to think about how they can do something about it in mature, intelligent ways.

As well, the "resources and support" could well be conversation, critical thinking, and brainstorming ways to effect change.

Yiannopoulos has a history of calling out vulnerable people in the audience by name and encouraging his fans to doxx them. My assumption reading this is that "resources and support" would be everything up to legal representation, bodyguards, and a couch in someone else's home if you start getting credible death threats.

Ugh, really? I don't know much about the guy.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/07/stop-claiming-that-milo-yiannopoulos-twitter-suspension-has-anything-to-do-with-free-speech/

[Lagom]

Milo is a straight up sociopath. Even if I were a liberal hating Trumpist I would still think twice, and then again, before saying anything in support of that guy.

[golden1]

Yiannopoulos has a history of calling out vulnerable people in the audience by name and encouraging his fans to doxx them.

Yup Milo is the Charles Manson of internet trolls.  He doesn't get his hands dirty, he just encourages other people to do his dirty work for him. 

[Miss Piggy]

Yiannopoulos has a history of calling out vulnerable people in the audience by name and encouraging his fans to doxx them.

Yup Milo is the Charles Manson of internet trolls.  He doesn't get his hands dirty, he just encourages other people to do his dirty work for him.

Interesting. I don't know much about him. Surprising that of all places, he was invited to Berkley. (Why does that look like it's spelled wrong?)

[bugbaby]

Milo is a straight up sociopath. Even if I were a liberal hating Trumpist I would still think twice, and then again, before saying anything in support of that guy.

Can you give an example of how he's a sociopath and why he must be silenced?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Kris]

Yiannopoulos has a history of calling out vulnerable people in the audience by name and encouraging his fans to doxx them.

Yup Milo is the Charles Manson of internet trolls.  He doesn't get his hands dirty, he just encourages other people to do his dirty work for him.

Interesting. I don't know much about him. Surprising that of all places, he was invited to Berkley. (Why does that look like it's spelled wrong?)

Because it is spelled wrong. It's Berkeley.

And the university did not invite him. A Republican student group did. But the university has to deal with the security, and the fallout, from that invitation.

[bacchi]

Milo is a straight up sociopath. Even if I were a liberal hating Trumpist I would still think twice, and then again, before saying anything in support of that guy.

Can you give an example of how he's a sociopath and why he must be silenced?

No one wrote that Milo should be silenced.

[Miss Piggy]

Yiannopoulos has a history of calling out vulnerable people in the audience by name and encouraging his fans to doxx them.

Yup Milo is the Charles Manson of internet trolls.  He doesn't get his hands dirty, he just encourages other people to do his dirty work for him.

Interesting. I don't know much about him. Surprising that of all places, he was invited to Berkley. (Why does that look like it's spelled wrong?)

Because it is spelled wrong. It's Berkeley.

And the university did not invite him. A Republican student group did. But the university has to deal with the security, and the fallout, from that invitation.

Thanks, I knew it wasn't right, but didn't feel like looking it up after my two spelling attempts failed.

Yeah, I know it was a republican student group that invited him. I guess I'm stereotyping here, but what surprises me is that the republicans at such an extremely liberal school are so...well...republican. Or maybe they just like stirring the pot. Or maybe their invitation to this guy isn't inherently republican as much as it is just wanting to stir the pot...any pot. I don't know.

[bacchi]

Yeah, I know it was a republican student group that invited him. I guess I'm stereotyping here, but what surprises me is that the republicans at such an extremely liberal school are so...well...republican. Or maybe they just like stirring the pot. Or maybe their invitation to this guy isn't inherently republican as much as it is just wanting to stir the pot...any pot. I don't know.

Well, it is the flagship school. If a Californian conservative wanted to stay in-state, and was top of their high school class, they'd pick Berkeley or maybe UCLA (if they couldn't afford USC).

[Kris]

Yiannopoulos has a history of calling out vulnerable people in the audience by name and encouraging his fans to doxx them.

Yup Milo is the Charles Manson of internet trolls.  He doesn't get his hands dirty, he just encourages other people to do his dirty work for him.

Interesting. I don't know much about him. Surprising that of all places, he was invited to Berkley. (Why does that look like it's spelled wrong?)

Because it is spelled wrong. It's Berkeley.

And the university did not invite him. A Republican student group did. But the university has to deal with the security, and the fallout, from that invitation.

Thanks, I knew it wasn't right, but didn't feel like looking it up after my two spelling attempts failed.

Yeah, I know it was a republican student group that invited him. I guess I'm stereotyping here, but what surprises me is that the republicans at such an extremely liberal school are so...well...republican. Or maybe they just like stirring the pot. Or maybe their invitation to this guy isn't inherently republican as much as it is just wanting to stir the pot...any pot. I don't know.

When you are a Republican and you choose possibly the most liberal school in the country to go to of all the other schools, and you join the college Republican organization and then you invite Milo to come speak... uh, yeah, you are there to stir the pot.

[MonkeyJenga]

Yeah, I know it was a republican student group that invited him. I guess I'm stereotyping here, but what surprises me is that the republicans at such an extremely liberal school are so...well...republican. Or maybe they just like stirring the pot. Or maybe their invitation to this guy isn't inherently republican as much as it is just wanting to stir the pot...any pot. I don't know.

Well, it is the flagship school. If a Californian conservative wanted to stay in-state, and was top of their high school class, they'd pick Berkeley or maybe UCLA (if they couldn't afford USC).

Plus, hell, college kids love being different and not following the crowd. Being a Republican at UC Berkeley is one way to do it. Maybe it's just a phase. :P

[Lagom]

Milo is a straight up sociopath. Even if I were a liberal hating Trumpist I would still think twice, and then again, before saying anything in support of that guy.

Can you give an example of how he's a sociopath and why he must be silenced?

No one wrote that Milo should be silenced.

Indeed I did not say that, nor would I.

As for what I did say, The public calls for doxxing have already been mentioned and they are far from the only example that can be brought to bear on the topic of Milo's horribleness, which is easily divined through a few simple internet searches.

[bugbaby]

Yeah, I know it was a republican student group that invited him. I guess I'm stereotyping here, but what surprises me is that the republicans at such an extremely liberal school are so...well...republican. Or maybe they just like stirring the pot. Or maybe their invitation to this guy isn't inherently republican as much as it is just wanting to stir the pot...any pot. I don't know.

Well, it is the flagship school. If a Californian conservative wanted to stay in-state, and was top of their high school class, they'd pick Berkeley or maybe UCLA (if they couldn't afford USC).

Plus, hell, college kids love being different and not following the crowd. Being a Republican at UC Berkeley is one way to do it. Maybe it's just a phase.

I'm sure y'all are joking, coz of the ridiculously obvious, what if they went to college for, err, academic rather than political reasons? Or is the holy grail of diversity not so holy when it comes to  diversity of ideas?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[ariapluscat]

Interesting statement by UC Berkeley that addresses some of this: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-yiannopoulos/

*screaming*

Why? I thought what he said was pretty "on target" from a free speech perspective. (I agree that most of what this guy would have said would have been offensive to many people, but that doesn't matter. He has the right to say it, and he was invited to campus by a student group.)

The part of his message that bothers me is this: "Although we urge anyone who is concerned about being targeted by Mr. Yiannopoulos to consider whether there is any value in attending this event, we stand ready to provide resources and support to our community members who may be adversely affected by his words and actions on the stage (we will provide more detail about these resources in a subsequent message)."  This is typical of today's college campuses--safe zones, trigger warnings, and general pussification of young adults who aren't encourage to think critically for themselves. Shit. Let them hear the offensive stuff. Let them get pissed off about it. Let them face the reality that some people, many people, think differently from them. And encourage them to think about how they can do something about it in mature, intelligent ways.

I actually prefer the University of Chicago's more adult approach: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/us/university-of-chicago-trigger-warnings-safe-spaces/

my incoherent screaming turned out to be incoherent, haha. i was really screaming/shocked by the fact that it was the bcrepublicans who invited him and were in turn responsible for preparing for the easily expected protest/controversy. i hadn't heard that aspect before and tbqh i have no idea what policy my college had/has. i guess they wouldn't be relevant any way since i went to a technically private college. but that it's the university that will be responsible for the costs of the security for counter protests seems unfair.

actually, i really agree with the part that bothers you. if you know something is likely to be offensive and goes against the values of the university, it makes sense for you to have resources to reiterate the values of the university and make sure your students feel safe. my understanding is that milo and his ilk have gone further than just making comments; he doxes and outs specific individuals and facilitates threatening messages from his followers. and the speech he makes seems to me to go into the territory of hate speech sometimes :/

as a pussified woman, i highly doubt universities' safe spaces are making young people weak or that the pussy cohort is unaware of things. again, my university may not be relevant since it was private but we had a diverse spread of safe spaces: safe spaces for just for women, children, upperclassmen, certain majors (these were even ID-key locked!), lgbt+, family-only housing, and racial minorities. we even had those age old bastions of safe spaces: the rich white male safe spaces of Fraternity houses. Those weaklings felt so threatened they had their safe spaces off campus! :C honestly, i wouldn't want to rehash the chicago thing; the university already stepped back from their poorly worded letter.

mainly screaming bc i didn't realize it was the club that invited him and was therefore responsible for managing security