Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Disgusting Berkeley Riots
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 2 of 275 (798479)
02-02-2017 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
02-02-2017 7:56 PM


No riots took place. This was alternative hugging, alternative central heating and alternative redecoration.
Trump writes:
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech
It does. That's why Milo was allowed to speak freely by UC Berkeley.
Trump writes:
and practices violence on innocent people
It doesn't. It hosted a speaker that was unpopular with the left wing.
Trump writes:
NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
So apparently a bunch of violent criminals caused $100,000 worth of damage to a university, so we should blame the university for their losses - and issue a threat to defund them. That makes total sense.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 02-02-2017 7:56 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Porosity, posted 02-02-2017 8:17 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 8:19 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 275 (798482)
02-02-2017 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
02-02-2017 8:19 PM


Those folks weren't rioting and burning and beating people up because they wanted someone to express an idea contrary to theirs.
Then don't give them federal funding. What did UC Berkeley do that would deserve this? Suffer losses after hosting a speaker those violent criminals didn't like?
Isn't this the way Hitler started? Anybody remember "brownshirts?"
Do you have evidence UC Berkeley administration orchestrated the riots?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 8:19 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 8:36 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 275 (798484)
02-02-2017 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
02-02-2017 8:36 PM


Don't try to pull a snowjob on me.
Right back at you.
The culture of Berkeley has been established for decades.
What has this got to do with Trump's tweet? Are you saying that UC Berkeley's culture, supported by the administration in one way or another, is to 'not allow free speech' and that their culture 'practices violence on innocent people' and that this therefore justifies threatening to defund them? And that therefore Trump was not talking about the riots specifically but about the Berkeley culture generally?
Brownshirts I said and brownshirts I meant.
So did the administration orchestrate it, as Hitler orchestrated the brownshirts?
Other than using violence to achieve their goals, do the perpetrators have any other points of similarity to the brownshirts?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 8:36 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 8:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 275 (798487)
02-02-2017 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
02-02-2017 8:59 PM


Yes, you catch on quick!
Well here's your opportunity to present your evidence to convince me. I'm British. I know next to nothing about UC Berkeley other than its academic reputation. Enlighten me.
The administration, faculty, and most students are lefties. They don't have to "orchestrate" the riots, but just to accommodate them to achieve their ends and those ends are remarkably similar to what the brownshirts practiced in early Germany.
Accommodate them how? Did they arm them? Did they allow them freedom of speech? Did they allow them to peaceably gather? What? I'm not sure I understand how the ends are remarkably similar. Are they trying to destroy communism? Are they engaging in acts intended to cause a dictator's rise to power? Are they using open display of arms to circumvent a ban on some political party? Are they attempting to recruit a people's army in an attempt to take their slice of political power in a coup? Are we anticipating UC Berkeley will kill key leaders in the rioters growing people's army in order to cement their political power?
The goal is to shut down any and all opposition through street violence.
That's it? That's the same as lots of other groups that instigated violence throughout history. Is this UC Berkeley's goal and is street violence the method of their choice? Are you sure the rioters goal isn't merely to 'fuck shit up'? or 'vent/express their anger'?
If you can't see the street violence being a prime weapon on the part of the progs, you need better glasses.
Are the progs an organised group with a defined leadership? Is UC Berkeley part of this leadership? I, again, am British. Maybe it's the thousands of miles that is at work. It sounds to me like absurd hyperbole. To me it looks like a relatively small group of people with malice intent causing chaos and property damage at a protest. You seem to be seeing an organised conspiracy of sorts.
Also - 'prime' weapon? It's the least effective weapon I've ever seen. Is Milo Yiannopoulos likely to stop talking as a result of this?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 8:59 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 10:01 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 11 of 275 (798490)
02-02-2017 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
02-02-2017 9:21 PM


Re: Yes the behavior was criminal.
The reaction was criminal but more than that it was stupid. The rioters did exactly what the idiot wanted.
From what I can determine where there is an organised group, they are a bunch of angry young men who meet on the internet and call themselves 'antifa'. From my observations they are near universally receiving this kind of condemnation from leftists, progressives et al.
The crazies on the right are making not so subtle eye brow movements towards their guns.
Here's to hoping stupid and violent doesn't win out - but the growing divides in US politics has been threatening to escalate for some time. I'm sure the Executive Administration will try to take measures to de-escalate tensions, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 02-02-2017 9:21 PM jar has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 25 of 275 (798561)
02-03-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
02-02-2017 10:01 PM


That is clearly the intent--to shut Milo and all others like him down at all costs
Not at all costs, obviously. Otherwise they'd wait for him to get on stage and they'd shoot him or knife him, club him to death or something. Is the tactic they're employing actually going to be effective in the medium or long term? The brownshirts had hundreds of thousands of members into the millions before Hitler disbanded them. This membership was concentrated primarily to one particular area of Germany - it was high density.
They seem to have much fewer numbers, using much stupider methods (probably as there is no central organisation of politically canny ex-soldiers directing them) - can they really do anything other than raise tensions and validate their enemy's rhetoric?
After a series of riots, how many campus administrations will even entertain the thought of Milo or others like him speaking there?
If Trump defunds universities because crazies on the internet start violence at university protests - then I expect that'll be be a bigger deterrent than a minor riot. 100s of thousands in damages vs 100s of millions in federal funding. I know which one would be more important. So why would Universities take the risk of losing some or all of their funding if the President will essentially fine them if trouble breaks out.
That's the goal of the rioters--raw power through violence. If you can't see that it's your shortcoming, not mine.
Brownshirts are among us again. Read some history.
In fighting the presumed Nazis, the progs have become the Nazis all over again.
Yes you said that already. You didn't however, answer my questions raised when you said it last. Responding to arguments in political threads has never really been your style, so I shouldn't be surprised.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 10:01 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 34 of 275 (798613)
02-03-2017 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
02-03-2017 6:47 PM


Re: Riots are bad (but it depends on who's rioting).
Wearing a Trump shirt is the only reason a young woman was sprayed in the face and physically yanked around. That's fascism. What else can you call it?
Dreadful behaviour. Just because fascists engaged in dreadful behaviour it doesn't mean people exhibiting dreadful behaviour are fascists.
Fascism is a political perspective that vehemently opposes Marxism and liberals, promotes radical nationalism under the guise of patriotism. It promotes the military and 'masculine' traits while demonizing minorities such as gays, foreigners and Jewish people. It utilizes the politics of declining moral standards, victimhood of the majority by the minorities. They espouse and celebrate authority, and assert their leaders should have broad or even absolute power in 'cleansing' society of undesirables - the aforementioned minorities. They vary between asserting they are trans-spectrum (neither left nor right, an 'alt' perspective you might say) and right wing.
Although they rose to power in the 20s through 30s on the back of violence, the violence wasn't the fascism - it was a tactic of fascism that other, opposing groups also used.
If most of the crowd really objects to treating people that way why didn't anyone come to her rescue?
From what I can tell the the interview took place outside of the crowd (as is typical), lasted a few seconds (meaning most people were unlikely to notice), and she was assisted by those around her.
That's not a protest, that's a riot and it is against the law and the whole thing should have been dispersed and arrests made.
Dispersal orders were made and so were arrests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 02-03-2017 6:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-04-2017 10:46 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 38 of 275 (798656)
02-04-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
02-04-2017 10:46 AM


Re: Riots are bad (but it depends on who's rioting).
"Dreadful behavior" glosses over the fact that the behavior is politically motivated, the aim being to suppress opposing viewpoints.
That still doesn't make it fascism.
The conservative point of view keeps getting called fascist although there hasn't been one case of such politically motivated violence on the Trump side.
Not so much the conservative point of view but the far-right American point of view? Let's see shall we?
"vehemently opposes Marxism and liberals"
Check.
"promotes radical nationalism under the guise of patriotism"
I suppose you could dispute this, but the comparison is at least somewhat apt 'America first', for example.
"promotes the military and 'masculine' traits while demonizing minorities such as gays, foreigners and Jewish people."
Well the American far-right sometimes goes after Jewish people, but they are more inclined towards Muslims who are often, but not exclusively semitic or black - and it's the immigrants - or foreigners they dislike. Gays is obviously true. They are all about 'the troops', and regularly complain about soft, 'snowflakes' of the left
"utilizes the politics of declining moral standards, victimhood of the majority by the minorities."
Christians are being persecuted, America is no longer great, multiculturalism and the gay agenda is undermining America's moral fabric, Islam is the real enemy etc etc
"They espouse and celebrate authority, and assert their leaders should have broad or even absolute power in 'cleansing' society of undesirables"
"Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress’s powers in this area are plenary, and the president’s powers are as broad as the Congress chooses to give him. "
" They vary between asserting they are trans-spectrum (neither left nor right, an 'alt' perspective you might say) and right wing."
Check. It seems there are many points of comparison that make sense, even if 'fascism' may be hyperbole.
there hasn't been one case of such politically motivated violence on the Trump side.
My point, that you ignored, is that politically motivated violence is not fascism and fascism is not politically motivated violence.
, but the point here is that "fascism" is wrongly used to brand conservatives when it is the Left that is acting like fascists.
They are also acting like Stalinists, and Irish Republicans, and Jewish Zionists such as Irgun. The American right's policies are closer aligned to fascism that the American left's. The tactics used by any given group may include violence but this is irrelevant to fascism which can exist without overt violence.
and the rallying cry is for freedom.
That was Hitler's rallying cry too, what's your point?
Hitler writes:
Over fourteen years have passed since that unhappy day when the German people, blinded by promises made by those at home and abroad, forgot the highest values of our past, of the Reich, of its honor and its freedom , and thereby lost everything. Since those days of treason, the Almighty has withdrawn his blessing from our nation. Discord and hatred have moved in. Filled with the deepest distress, millions of the best German men and women from all walks of life see the unity of the nation disintegrating in a welter of egoistical political opinions, economic interests, and ideological conflicts.
As so often in our history, Germany, since the day the revolution broke out, presents a picture of heartbreaking disunity. We did not receive the equality and fraternity which was promised us; instead we lost our freedom.
Hitler writes:
We have a burning conviction that the German people in 1914 went into the great battle without any thought of personal guilt and weighed down only by the burden of having to defend the Reich from attack, to defend the freedom and material existence of the German people.
Hitler writes:
The National Government will therefore regard it as its first and supreme task to restore to the German people unity of mind and will. It will preserve and defend the foundations on which the strength of our nation rests. It will take under its firm protection Christianity as the basis of our morality, and the family as the nucleus of our nation and our state. Standing above estates and classes, it will bring back to our people the consciousness of its racial and political unity and the obligations arising therefrom. It wishes to base the education of German youth on respect for our great past and pride in our old traditions. It will therefore declare merciless war on spiritual, political and cultural nihilism.
That was from one speech.
Here are some others
Hitler writes:
If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower.
Hitler writes:
In vowing ourselves to one another, we are entitled to stand before the Almighty and ask Him for His grace and His blessing. No people can do more than that everybody who can fight, fights, and that everybody who can work, works, and that they all sacrifice in common, filled with but one thought: to safeguard freedom and national honor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-04-2017 10:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 275 (798660)
02-04-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coyote
02-04-2017 11:27 AM


THIS HITLER NONSENSE [blog]
Exactly. Glad to see you are dropping the brownshirts nonsense. We just need to get Faith on board and that unfortunate and 'eye-rolling' hyperbole can be put to bed once and for all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 02-04-2017 11:27 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 66 of 275 (798756)
02-05-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
02-05-2017 10:35 AM


Re: anarchists and agent provocateurs
It was an older man not wearing black who pepper-sprayed the young woman wearing the Trump hat
The videos I've seen (2 of them) show a man in a black jacket wearing black gloves. What videos have you seen? Also she wasn't wearing a Trump hat. It was a red hat - presumably chosen for its association with both Trump and Milo - but it actually said 'Make Bitcoin Great Again'.
There should have been massive police action and arrests. So they're hiding their identity in black, you can still go after the guys in black when you see them hit or stomp somebody or start a fire etc, why didn't that happen?
I believe the University police say making arrests in the middle of a riot would have put themselves and innocents in danger; that they were more focussed on getting people to safety.
I've been watching Infowars off and on recently (you can hold the ad hominems) and they have coverage of stuff you won't see elsewhere, including people who were at these events describing such things as that women were being especially targeted, and that pleas to the cops, at the inauguration protests anyway, got the answer that they were told by the President (Obama) not to intervene, even when a bloodied victim appealed for help. The "mainstream" media seems to shy away from such reports.
One assumes they were unable to find any verification for the reports, such as a police officer saying this.
Incidentally there were over 200 arrests made in Washington during the inauguration protests.
Nine were arrested in New York.
Six in Chicago.
Six in Portland.
Five in Dallas.
3 arrests at UC Berkeley (I believe this number excludes the man who shot another man described below).
1 Trump and Milo supporter shot a peaceful protester at Berkeley, turned himself in and was not charged. The victim, shot in the stomach and had 'life-threatening injuries' was described as trying to de-escalate a potentially violent situation has called for no criminal charges and insists he wants a 'dialogue' and restorative justice to occur instead.
I don't think any charges were placed against the "Make America Great Again" red hat wearing man who pepper sprayed a 15 year old girl. The girl is being charged after throwing a punch against someone else who said they weren't interesting in filing charges.
Allen Scarsella, who was masked up, shot 5 black lives matter protesters at a protest in 2015, was recently found guilty.
Another report was that a large number of people were kept from getting into the inauguration by a crowd of Black Lives Matter terrorists among others
Terrorists? Seems a little extreme. Since when is locking arms forming a barrier a terrorist action? It's disruptive, but terrorists? Come come, let's keep that word for people that deserve it.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 10:35 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 8:19 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 68 of 275 (798768)
02-05-2017 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ThinAirDesigns
02-05-2017 12:36 PM


It's good to know I only need wear black to hide my identity.
The uniform wearing of black is seen as a tactic to intimidate, give the impression of an organised movement and to inhibit identification on camera by not displaying characteristic clothing - logos, certain patterns etc. The wearing of gloves, masks and scarves over the faces is how to hide your identity. Read RAZD's Message 63 more carefully:
quote:
Those who practice it often wear black and cover their face with masks. ...throngs of criminal anarchists all dress in black clothing in an effort to appear as a unified assemblage, giving the appearance of solidarity for the particular cause at hand...The reason for the dress, wrote the history's author Daniel Dylan Young, was to "fend off police attacks, without being singled out as individuals for arrest and harassment later on

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-05-2017 12:36 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 94 of 275 (799533)
02-10-2017 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
02-10-2017 4:25 AM


Re: The Soros Connection
Is there any earthly chance you could go on the record, at a future time, if we set careful ground rules?
Sorry, I can’t.
And yet she published his comments anyway, along with the date, approximate time, the person's job, employer, that he was working, his precise location and his assigned work duty. Go journalistic ethics! Nobody will ever be able to identify him, should he be an actual real person.
If she lies to her sources, who knows how she'll treat her readers?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 4:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 11:29 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 98 of 275 (799590)
02-11-2017 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
02-10-2017 11:29 PM


Re: The Soros Connection
My first thought was that it's not likely anyone would go to the trouble to find out the man's identity
I'm pretty sure his boss would be interested in finding out who was sharing intel with reporters.
or would succeed at it in any case
I'm pretty sure his boss, especially being as he is in charge of POLICE would have a reasonable chance of succeeding.
but then I realized this is a crime we're talking about.
What crime?
I would hope the information she gave would work to that end.
Apparently the police had 'intel' - what information did she give that would work towards proving a crime had been committed? She just repeated an allegation. Even if we believe her, the allegation isn't a criminal one, and even if it were - saying the police are aware of information doesn't prove the crime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 11:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 02-11-2017 1:03 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 100 of 275 (799593)
02-11-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
02-11-2017 1:03 PM


Re: The Soros Connection
needed to bring Soros to prosecution
For what? Funding a protest is not illegal. Are you also suggesting the Kochs were breaking the law in funding the Tea Party protests?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 02-11-2017 1:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 02-11-2017 1:32 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 102 of 275 (799598)
02-11-2017 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
02-11-2017 1:32 PM


Re: The Soros Connection
Not for funding a "protest," for funding violent riots and destroying property and hurting people. THAT's the charge, as the article says.
I missed it, could you quote the bit where the police officer alleged Soros was paying people to riot?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 02-11-2017 1:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 02-11-2017 5:22 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 02-11-2017 5:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024