|
Post by Amadan on Jan 14, 2017 17:44:06 GMT -5
Disclosure: I went to UC Davis for one of my graduate degrees. It is very much a "liberal bubble" college town, every bit as lefty and SJW-infested as its more famous UC sisters, Berkeley and Santa Cruz. So I was not surprised that inviting Milo Yiannopoulos created an uproar. That said, I was prepared to rant about SJWs once again opposing free speech, but it seems like it might not be that clear cut. Evidently, while there were protests and the crowd was ugly, there was no actual violence or property destruction. College kids were doing what they do - protesting and screaming. The College Republicans cancelled the event because they were afraid it might turn violent and they would be held liable. So on the one hand, I don't doubt for a moment that the protesters are enemies of free speech and some of them probably would have been willing to use violence to shut the event down, but that didn't actually happen. Instead, Milo and the Republicans are crying about leftist "violence" and the whole thing smells of trolling. People are certainly entitled to protest and wave signs at a speaker they don't like. Given how quickly many college administrations buckle to demands to shut down "hate speech," I was actually surprised at the chancellor's defense of the event.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 14, 2017 18:44:32 GMT -5
Milo is claiming on his FB page that the narrative as reported to the press by the University is false. I have no idea who is telling the truth in this case. He could be over-exaggerating, but I've seen vids of incidents at some of his other speaking engagements, so his version of things doesn't seem super far-fetched:
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 14, 2017 18:52:49 GMT -5
Obviously biased, obviously selectively-edited video of some of the protesters, but... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi60NH4Cm7QTo be clear, I'm no fan of Milo. But I'm also no fan of the trend toward this type of extreme shit on a few campuses either.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 15, 2017 16:44:24 GMT -5
This asshole wanted to spew his troll bullshit at a university? If I attended that school, I'd be protesting, too. Same as I would if a KKK member was invited to speak by white supremist students. He doesn't deserve a platform at an educational institution. He doesn't have a "right" to speak there, as far as I can see. This isn't about "free speech" and I fail to understand why that right keeps getting invoked. He can go stand on a street corner with a bullhorn if he wants. He should watch out for swerving cars, though.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 15, 2017 18:40:21 GMT -5
He was invited by a campus group, which has every right to give him a platform.
Students are entitled to protest, but that's it.
Free speech keeps getting involved because it is a free speech issue when universities are asked to deny a platform to someone on the basis of people not liking the speaker, or when protestors use the threat of violence (which, again, it is not clear happened here) to prevent someone's speech.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 15, 2017 18:51:49 GMT -5
Yes, a campus group invited him and paid for it with their own money. Additionally, it's not a required event. It's totally optional and anyone who wants to hear him can go and anyone who doesn't can stay home. He's only preaching to the choir at those events anyway, so a better approach would probably be to book a speaker who best represents the values and ideas of the opposition. Protesting a voluntary event is, frankly, stupid but especially when it gets to the point that protesters become de facto rioters. And "progressive" crowds of "protesters" can become just as aggressive, violent, and bullying as those pro-Trump assholes the media plastered all over TV during the election: youtu.be/J7yyr-6_l4c
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 15, 2017 19:41:43 GMT -5
So you would make the same argument about a KKK member being invited to speak?
I'll assume yes, since you'd want to be consistent.
But since the university didn't ban Milo, let alone did police cart him off to jail for uttering his filth, I see this more as democracy in action, and I'm pretty fucking happy about it.
Don't misunderstand, I think there are plenty of potential speakers whom one might not agree with but who should be "allowed" to speak, and who have been unfairly uninvited from speaking engagements (Condoleezza Rice comes to mind) but this guy??? Save your argument for someone who's not a hateful, attention-whoring douchebag.
Contrary to (apparently) popular belief, the old saying does not start out: "First they came for the hateful, attention-whoring douchebags..."
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 15, 2017 20:09:08 GMT -5
If you could point me to some things he has specifically said which reach the level of hate-speech from the KKK, then I'll be able to agree with you.
If not, you're drawing a false equivalence.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 15, 2017 20:34:45 GMT -5
If you could point me to some things he has specifically said which reach the level of hate-speech from the KKK, then I'll be able to agree with you. If not, you're drawing a false equivalence. So you've been defending someone about whom you know nothing? Google is your friend. Not my job to spoon feed it to you.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 15, 2017 20:39:42 GMT -5
So, basically, you're tacitly admitting that you don't know of any.
I know enough about him to know that I've yet to see anything that he's said or ideas that he's pushed that come close to the positions of the KKK.
Is your position based on fact or emotion?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 15, 2017 20:43:11 GMT -5
So, basically, you're tacitly admitting that you don't know of any. I know enough about him to know that I've yet to see anything that he's said or ideas that he's pushed that come close to the positions of the KKK. Is your position based on fact or emotion? No, basically, I'm saying GOOGLE THE SHIT. *huffs* Fine. I'll login with my laptop and spoonfeed it to you. Put on your bib, Opty.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 15, 2017 21:13:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jan 15, 2017 21:18:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 15, 2017 21:23:15 GMT -5
Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 15, 2017 21:50:55 GMT -5
That article doesn't actually address anything he said. All it claimed was that his followers attacked Jones on social media. As bad as that is, it doesn't rise the level of claiming that Jews and black people should be exterminated (like the KKK says). Rather sexist, but doesn't rise the level of claiming white supremacy and that Jews and black people should be exterminated. A bad attempt at a bad sexist joke, but doesn't rise to the level of claiming white supremacy and that Jews and black people should be exterminated. An arguably understandable rant about the Orlando massacre and the fact that the majority of Muslim countries, and the majority of Muslims in those countries, believe really horrible, barbaric things when it comes to homosexuals and women. Nothing here rises to the level of claiming white supremacy and that Jews and black people should be exterminated, but it does point out that certain cultures do call for Muslim supremacy and the extermination of homosexuals. Simply an article summarizing the article in the previous link. This is redundant. His personal opinion that children benefit more from a heterosexual household than a homosexual one. I disagree with him, but while he makes some misguided, misinformed statements, he doesn't say much of anything here that a reasonable person could consider "hate speech." Nothing said here rises to the level of claiming white supremacy and that Jews and black people should be exterminated. Insensitive, rather bigoted, and arguably hateful, but doesn't rise to the level of claiming white supremacy and that Jews and black people should be exterminated. Actually, this isn't an analysis. It's just a claim that he's a "hate speech peddler." However, the author doesn't bother to cite or discuss anything Milo has actually said as evidence to back up that proposition. So, yeah, I agree that a lot of what Milo says is moronic, stupid, and sexist, and that he's basically just a troll. And, I'm of the opinion that he should shut up and go away. But, you've provided absolutely zero evidence that he's said anything that rises to the level of the KKK. Therefore, your earlier claim that... ...is not only logically fallacious, it is not supported by the evidence you've provided. It is, by definition, a false equivalence.
|
|