The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby chud on Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:50 pm

BruceP wrote:Thanks for posting that, Michael.

Hooliganism and domestic terrorism being painted as righteous indignation isn't helping things. Factual, impartial examination of the events at UCB has borne out more than just a little hypocrisy on the part of those who oppose first amendment rights - irrespective of any one who exercises those right for its own sake.

The 'movement's' online threats have successfully coerced and terrorized an Oregon town into canceling a parade just because a group of local repubs are annual participants.

Your posts have elicited some of the classic responses people express when their entrenched views run into the wall of cognitive dissonance. We got, silence, glib deflection, the full gamut of logical fallacies (all in one post), and "...but...but Trump and white people!"

Interesting to see how things are progressing with the educated and enlightened neo-non-nazis when they default to organized violence instead of initiating open, fair and constructive dialogue.


+1.
The Left doesn't seem to understand that free speech doesn't just apply to speech that you like.
User avatar
chud
Great Old One
 
Posts: 3512
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 7:42 am
Location: Alamo City, Lone Star State

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:14 pm

Hi Micheal,

If you have followed my discussion on FB, you would surely have noted that I have repeatedly stated my belief that even despicable people such as Milo and Ann Coulter should be allowed to speak. I would also point out that conservatives are completely misrepresenting the Freedom of Speech Movement by equating it with the First Amendment. But, the Right has always been a haven for the mentally retarded (the best they have are jokers like Sowell and Milt, and even Sowell doesn't stoop to overt racism all that often).

Now, if you want to be intellectually honest, you would answer my question as to how many people have been killed by Antifa. Now, how many people have been killed by white nationalists and white socialists? Let's just look at the last decade or two. We don't even have to go back to Jim Crow.

Given the very long history of white supremacists murdering people of color and other sexual orientation, I am surprised that these right wing trolls are not met with more resistance (the majority of protesters are peaceful, but there is certainly a group of them who see themselves as fighting violence with violence (Antifa, black block, etc).

And yes, I know some people who go and protest with Antifa. So what? That's a lot better than knowing (or sympathizing with) Nazi's, which is what you seem to be doing. These friends of mine were part of the punk scene when I was a kid in the Sac area. There was a very serious neo-Nazi and skinhead problem back then, with multiple stabbings and other violent assaults on POC for months and years on end. The cops didn't do anything about it. The only thing that drove the neo's out of the music scene was a concerted effort to kick their asses every single time they showed up. They finally stopped showing up. It was the only thing that worked. The Antifa that I know lived through that, and saw some of their friends murdered. They are seeing the same stuff creeping back up and so this is how they react. I am not justifying it, merely relating the situation as it has been told to me.

Anyway, I get that you are drawn to conspiracy theories, and that you used to be all about Info Wars. I guess some people's brains are just wired that way. But, this whole idea that the White Man is the under dog and that the fascist alt right are the victims is the exact opposite of either intellectual honesty or ability--take your pick. You are basically sliding into the same camp as WW, and that's a shame.

So, as I said, I think these disgusting people should be allowed to speak so that everyone knows what they are saying. I don't think that my alma mater should have to pay for them to do so, though. None of these media trolls are qualified to be teaching or speaking for money at the top public university in the USA.

It's telling that people are still rallying behind Milo the pederast and Coulter the blatant racist. If we are being intelletucally honest, who are the real underdogs? I don't think it's Antifa (and certainly not Black Block), but they are fighting for the right side. The real underdogs are the poor, people of color, and other minoreties who are murdered by the worst of those you are supporting and marginalized (via voting and the implementation of prejudiced laws) by the very best of those you are supporting. All of the people you are supporting are disgusting, whereas only the fringe of the protesters are violent...
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:20 pm

Interesting to see how things are progressing with the educated and enlightened neo-non-nazis when they default to organized violence instead of initiating open, fair and constructive dialogue.


Right, because the Alt-right is well known for embodying these traits. Oh wait, the most mellow of them encourage and participate in massive online bullying and smear tactics. They encourage rape and eugenics. Just look at what Milo and Spencer have said in the past and what they continue to say.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:34 pm

Here's some "constructive dialogue" from the man who coined the term, Alt-Right.



He is blatantly quoting Nazi leadership and eliciting just the kind of response one might expect.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:48 pm

The Left doesn't seem to understand that free speech doesn't just apply to speech that you like.


And the right doesn't seem to understand that the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to be given a venue to speak at any place they like. ::) Are you really that daft? Do you think you are constitutionally granted the right to go and give lectures at Harvard whenever you like? What a ridiculous notion.

At any rate, let's take a look at whether Ann Coulter is qualified to speak at one of our top institutions (she has some nice antisemitism in here, too):

文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby BruceP on Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:08 pm

I thought Coulter had been invited to speak and was then uninvited for fear of more violence?
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby BruceP on Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:11 pm

Maybe change the conversation, Ian.

Arguing about what actually happened, as outlined in Michael's opening post, doesn't change the 'narrative' of facts as those facts pertain to the actions of antifa at Berkeley. Nor does it move the conversation forward. All it does is open old wounds and maybe make new ones.

How would you create a peaceable coming together if you had a bunch of people from both 'sides' agreeing to follow your ideas for ten minutes? What if it were only a single person from either side? How tenuous would that coming together be during and after those ten minutes?
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:27 pm

While simply "sticking to the timeline" might make things seem easier to digest, I am not at all convinced that talking about these events without the very context (historical, social, and emotional) that has created the backlash is at all accurate or useful. It just helps to forward the unnuanced "I'm right and you are wrong narrative."

How would you create a peaceable coming together if you had a bunch of people from both 'sides' agreeing to follow your ideas for ten minutes? What if it were only a single person from either side? How tenuous would that coming together be during and after those ten minutes?


I think this is an excellent, but difficult question. Actually, Cal did come up with what they felt was a more secure venue, but Coulter declined. But, I can understand how it is not fair to assume that a public figure can just reschedule for one event.

I think that having a structured debate (is that what you are proposing in the above?) would be much more appropriate for a college campus. If the "left" didn't field a strong debater with knowlege of the topics, then they would probably lose and I would say that it was their own fault. I do think that such an event would be worth the price of admission and they could hold it in a larger venue with security.

As I said, I think people should be given the right to speak, although I am not sure that Coulter deserves to be given a stage at a Universtity to spout her rhetoric without any challenge.

There is a lot of tension in the country right now, and the fact that the Right is enthusiatically embracing overt racism and even the Nazi Party of War era Germany does not help.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:33 pm

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:people will put hours into digging up evidence to build narratives that forward the idea that overtly racist and fascist people are the victims.

Fortunately, free speech is granted to all, which includes those that you think are overtly racist or fascist. Who those people are that you wish to label as racist and fascist may be a point upon which we disagree, but their free speech is necessary and should not be violently suppressed.

Imagine what one could find spending half the time looking into how many people have been violently murdered by white nationalist or white socialist "activists." Has the Antifa killed anyone yet? If so, how many. On the flip side, how many people have been shot, stabbed, or killed by white supremacists in the last year? In Washington, Milo supporters recently shot people. Didn't hear of any Antifa doing that at Berkeley.

You've only mentioned one person who was shot. In a proper argument, people from opposing sides present evidence and maybe you're in a better position to do that for the side you're speaking for at the moment, to reveal to me and others in the discussion things they're not aware of, so go ahead and do so. Don't need any more clips of airhead blondes :)

Now, if you want to be intellectually honest, you would answer my question as to how many people have been killed by Antifa. Now, how many people have been killed by white nationalists and white socialists? Let's just look at the last decade or two. We don't even have to go back to Jim Crow.


Your question about the number of murders only made sense to me as a rhetorical one and just sounded like whataboutism. Comparing numbers of murders does not seem relevant to me. You're just using it to deflect the evidence at hand that contradicts your position that you support free speech. I do not know how many people Antifa or White Supremacists have murdered, it's just a leading question to avoid the point of this topic, but on video recently Antifa were recorded repeatedly attacking people in ways so violent and dangerous it could have led to fatalities. I condemned the shooting at Univ. of Washington, but you do not do the same in regard to Antifa's violence. I don't think you can have that and also say you support the free speech of people you lump in with Nazi's, because that's exactly the same rationalization Antifa uses to justify attacking peaceful people, such as the physical attack Felarca's group made against a lone, peaceful member of the Traditional Worker's Party caught on video last June in Sacramento.

I watched the two clips you provided and it's easy for me to acknowledge that the thing with Spencer looks disgusting, it's obviously been edited for a length, so I'd like to see the whole speech and be certain of what's going on. I watched an interview with Nathan Damigo (the guy who punched Moldylocks) in order to discover for myself if he deserves the reputation of a racist or whatever, but only made it 30 minutes of 60 before giving up from boredom because the interviewer was hopeless at getting to the point. Why don't you take a few minutes and look at the clips I've posted of extreme Antifa violence?

While simply "sticking to the timeline" might make things seem easier to digest, I am not at all convinced that talking about these events without the very context (historical, social, and emotional) that has created the backlash is at all accurate or useful. It just helps to forward the unnuanced "I'm right and you are wrong narrative."

That's fine. I'm not trying for an I'm right and your're wrong outcome. However, by refusing to respond directly to the worst of the violence I've referenced you really seem to be avoiding common ground.

this whole idea that the White Man is the under dog and that the fascist alt right are the victims is the exact opposite of either intellectual honesty or ability--take your pick.

I've never said that and I haven't seen that being said once by the proponents of free speech I've referenced. Not once.

The real underdogs are the poor, people of color, and other minoreties who are murdered by the worst of those you are supporting and marginalized (via voting and the implementation of prejudiced laws) by the very best of those you are supporting. All of the people you are supporting are disgusting, whereas only the fringe of the protesters are violent...

The way you frame this discussion is that all of the people I'm supporting are disgusting and I am also supporting murderers. That's ridiculously exaggerated. Whereas you don't need to say anything about the obvious violence going on now because of murders that occurred in the past and your apparent belief that Antifa have not murdered anyone. They should add that to the logo on the concealable, credit card knives they sell, "We're not as murderous as White Supremacists!" I guess the blade's not long enough.

And the right doesn't seem to understand that the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to be given a venue to speak at any place they like. ::) Are you really that daft? Do you think you are constitutionally granted the right to go and give lectures at Harvard whenever you like? What a ridiculous notion.

You're jumping to conclusions, which seems to be a pattern of lumping everyone into the same category of those who disagree with you. No one has said that anyone had a 1st amendment right to speak in an authorized venue inside UCB and the lawyer who gave the press conference I posted answered this question in excellent detail.

Berkeley has its rules for authorized speakers, but the lawsuit charges that within these rules, conservative speakers are being denied the same access granted to liberal speakers. Coulter, Milo, Vicente Fox, Dalai Lama, etc., are qualified to speak there because they were invited by an authorized student organization.

The security concerns and monetary costs are real and my opinion is that Berkeley should have discretion about who is to pay for them. The lawyer said they charged $20,000 for the Dalai Lama and also gave some other examples.

This same lawyer said that inside an authorized Berkeley speaking arena is a "limited first amendment" venue, meaning that you have to be invited by an authorized body, but once invited you do have rights for equal treatment, etc. For an "unlimited first amendment" venue, an open area like Sproul Plaza is where you don't need any permission. I'm just quoting the lawyer who lives there as I've only been on campus once.

As I said, I think people should be given the right to speak, although I am not sure that Coulter deserves to be given a stage at a Universtity to spout her rhetoric without any challenge.

It was supposed to be an open forum with Q & A, just as Milo's were, so challenges were welcomed.

There is a lot of tension in the country right now, and the fact that the Right is enthusiatically embracing overt racism and even the Nazi Party of War era Germany does not help.

How would you deal with it? By violently attacking those labeled as Nazi's? The problem that's being addressed is how to prevent things turning violent when the problems we've both described are occurring. Politics and free speech mean you should remain non-violent, allow your political opponents the opportunity to speak, counter them with ideas and then reset after any conflict in order to prevent continual escalation. If the police won't keep the peace, that's another hurdle.

At present, a large number of people who consider themselves mainstream conservatives, centrists or right-of-center, feel that their free speech is being violently oppressed by Antifa. They do not see themselves as neo-nazis or alt-right and they're a large segment of the population, perhaps half the country—those who voted for Trump. How do we reduce the tension, avoid escalation and play politics instead of something worse?
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:31 am

Bruce mentioned this earlier. Here are a couple of details.

Anonymous e-mail linking itself to Portland Antifa, who previously closed downtown streets, threatens to drag out Republicans from annual Rose Parade.

http://www.oregonlive.com/rosefest/index.ssf/2017/04/organizers_cancel_82nd_avenue.html

This is another example of equating a political opponent, the Republican Party, with Nazi's, fascists, etc., and rationalizing threats of violence as being legitimate. The parade was completely canceled.

In this example, which has become a pattern, a fringe group of violent people hold veto power over the 1st amendment for a completely normal street parade that's been going on for 10 years.

KGW-TV video report.
Last edited by Michael on Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:20 am

Right. So Ann Coulter is not racist and Spencer is not a fascist. And context doesn't matter. Got it. It's easy enough to look up more than just one shooting in regards to white supremacist groups. Heck, it's in the news all the time--whether groups or lone wolves...of course, the lone wolves are always influenced by other people (who you don't think are racist).
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:53 am

How did you get that from what I said? Did I say Spencer is not a fascist? Did I say Coulter is not a racist? Let's say they both are. They still have a right to free speech and I think that socially it's imperative they be allowed to exercise it. There's a good chance you know more about both of them than i do, so tell us why they should not be heard or whatever it is you think makes them the crux of your argument.

If it's so easy to look up white supremacist shootings, just give a link or two and some context about its relevance to your view on things, or try to say something I can respond to.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Steve James on Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:12 am

So, the claim has become that Antifa, Ian, and the Left are the enemies of free speech. And, when Ian says that he isn't opposed to Coulter or Milo speaking, he's contradicted. He's asked how a peaceful discussion could go on with people who throw bricks, but Ian is discussing --even if you disagree-- and not throwing bricks. No one in this thread has thrown them or promoted doing so. Now, if I'm wrong, and there are brick-throwers in this conversation, they should make that clear.

Anyway, afa "free speech," I remember students in NY (at Columbia and NYU, etc.,) protesting the speaking engagements of people who'd made anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish statements. This isn't an issue of free speech; it's an issue of using violence. It's an outright lie to say that it is a political principle of "the left" and by association the Democrats and by association to anyone against Trump. But, fine, that's ok.

What's really interesting to me is the amount of effort used to condemn Antifa, Blac Bloc, BAMN, but not a single thread condemning fascism, nazism, neo-nazis, white supremacists, or white supremacy.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15576
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:37 am

Steve James wrote:So, the claim has become that Antifa, Ian, and the Left are the enemies of free speech. And, when Ian says that he isn't opposed to Coulter or Milo speaking, he's contradicted. He's asked how a peaceful discussion could go on with people who throw bricks, but Ian is discussing --even if you disagree-- and not throwing bricks. No one in this thread has thrown them or promoted doing so. Now, if I'm wrong, and there are brick-throwers in this conversation, they should make that clear.

Anyway, afa "free speech," I remember students in NY (at Columbia and NYU, etc.,) protesting the speaking engagements of people who'd made anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish statements. This isn't an issue of free speech; it's an issue of using violence. It's an outright lie to say that it is a political principle of "the left" and by association the Democrats and by association to anyone against Trump. But, fine, that's ok.

What's really interesting to me is the amount of effort used to condemn Antifa, Blac Bloc, BAMN, but not a single thread condemning fascism, nazism, neo-nazis, white supremacists, or white supremacy.

It's not so much that you're wrong about who is throwing bricks, it's that the point you're making is not relevant, either about brick throwing, about Ian and the Left being enemies of free speech, or about why there isn't a single thread condemning fascism, etc.

Your points are irrelevant because of the videos I've presented that show peaceful protesters being violently attacked by Antifa, who rationalize their violence by labeling their victims as fascists, nazis, neo-nazis, etc., and the people they're attacking in the three events I've focused upon do not belong to any of these groups.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:52 am

This video from Black Pigeon Speaks makes an attempt to explain the psychology of Antifa.

ANTIFA: UNWITTING Pawns of the ESTABLISHMENT



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMviZCjUoSY

His sources for the video include more recent Antifa violence.
Last edited by Michael on Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: .Q. and 1 guest