More protests getting out of hand in Berkeley

[KMFJD]

One guy went there trying to bring peace and togetherness

 

[Amused]

Tell me again how the alt-right at the protest weren't racists looking for a fight.

This is the guy hitting the girl

 

[mikeymikec]

That's a whole lot of disagreement without any actual counter-argument. Berkeley is seen as a Mecca of the American left. It makes it an obvious target for pro-Trump people to demonstrate at. You tell me what you think they were protesting, and once you've established that, you tell me how the message of their protest (irrespective of any and all violence by some participants) is even relevant.

There is no message: They're there to stir shit up.

You began your argument by suggesting that they were there to exercise their right to free speech, now you're asking me to supply your argument for you.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yeah, the guy is scum and should be in prison for life with his record. So is this alt-left piece of shit that attacked another person with a bike lock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg

Participants from both sides went for the express purpose of starting fights and causing riots.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There is no message: They're there to stir shit up.

You began your argument by suggesting that they were there to exercise their right to free speech, now you're asking me to supply your argument for you.

Define "stir shit up". If you mean saying controversial things knowing they faced physical opposition for saying them, you're right, but then again, that is considered valid political speech in the United States. Again, you live in a nation without freedom of speech and assembly, so you really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[mikeymikec]

Define "stir shit up". If you mean saying controversial things knowing they faced physical opposition for saying them, you're right, but then again, that is considered valid political speech in the United States. Again, you live in a nation without freedom of speech, so you really have no idea what you're talking about.

They came for violence, that's what they got.

You can hardly argue for freedom of speech when these fucking guys aren't saying anything!

 

[HamburgerBoy]

They came for violence, that's what they got.

You can hardly argue for freedom of speech when these fucking guys aren't saying anything!

You're moving the goalposts now. I never said none of them came for violence, clearly at least some of them did. All I'm saying is that your point about them picking Berkeley as a location to protest at is completely irrelevant. You could use the exact same logic to delegitimize black protests in front of white supremacists. The message is irrelevant as long as it isn't threatening. The location is irrelevant as long as it is done on public space. Americans have a right to protest any political message they wish, in front of any group they wish.

 

[mikeymikec]

You're moving the goalposts now. I never said none of them came for violence, clearly at least some of them did. All I'm saying is that your point about them picking Berkeley as a location to protest at is completely irrelevant. You could use the exact same logic to delegitimize black protests in front of white supremacists. The message is irrelevant as long as it isn't threatening. The location is irrelevant as long as it is done on public space. Americans have a right to protest any political message they wish, in front of any group they wish.

I haven't moved the goalposts, my point has been the same all along: "What fucking message? What protest?". Try reviewing your contributions to this thread that I've responded to, because you're apparently one confused bunny.

Alternatively, you can keep harping on that they should be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech when they're evidently not there to do that.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I haven't moved the goalposts, my point has been the same all along: "What fucking message? What protest?". Try reviewing your contributions to this thread that I've responded to, because you're apparently one confused bunny.

Alternatively, you can keep harping on that they should be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech when they're evidently not there to do that.

I already told you, the message is anti-left/pro-Trump. Do you want video? There is footage of dudes with MAGA caps, waving American flags around, chanting the usual slogans etcetc. I saw one part where the message was a chant about Soros and his bagels; obviously anti-Semitic, but that's protected speech too. Most of it probably originates with one of Milo's events being shut down a couple months back by ANTIFA rioting. Here's the context that proves you're a flaming liar:

Are you serious? What the fuck have a bunch of neo-nazis got to protest about at Berkeley of all places? Are they being oppressed there?

You clearly state that the venue of Berkeley invalidates a claim to freedom of speech. Rather than attacking the pro-Trump protestors for their criminal actions, you attack them for their message, their location, and their social status. You fundamentally don't understand the extent to which speech is protected in America.

 

[mikeymikec]

I already told you, the message is anti-left/pro-Trump. Do you want video? There is footage of dudes with MAGA caps, waving American flags around, chanting the usual slogans etcetc. I saw one part where the message was a chant about Soros and his bagels; obviously anti-Semitic, but that's protected speech too. Most of it probably originates with one of Milo's events being shut down a couple months back by ANTIFA rioting.Here's the context that proves you're a flaming liar:

You clearly state that the venue of Berkeley invalidates a claim to freedom of speech. Rather than attacking the pro-Trump protestors for their criminal actions, you attack them for their message, their location, and their social status. You fundamentally don't understand the extent to which speech is protected in America.

Actually, I didn't clearly state that at all, it was a question, and your answer to my initial question is as vague as ever. I asked you what they have to protest about, at Berkeley of all places, and are they being oppressed there.

What is a "pro-Trump" protest about exactly? Are they going to protest that more people didn't vote for him, or that he hasn't been crowned as King Trump?

The point of a protest is to send a clear message about what a group considers to be unsatisfactory with something in our society and that they wish to draw public and media attention to. There is no message here, at least certainly not one that you or I have been able to discern, yet you continue to argue as if this is a freedom of speech issue.

I haven't attacked these people for their message, I've criticised them for their entire lack of message. The reason that I called them neo-nazis is because pretty much all the coverage of this incident labels them as "alt-right", to which I see very little to discern that from neo-nazi-ism, or to dispute the use of that label in this case.

I've no idea where I'm supposed to have attacked anyone's social status.

We've gone around in enough circles here. If you want to try and defend your original point that this is somehow a freedom of speech issue, then find a clear message of what these protests are supposed to be about. Until then, I think it's fair to say that this event is just violence for the sake of violence and the chance for some to kick the teeth in of those they consider to be the opposition. We're in agreement that it apparently originally started with anti-Milo people protesting that he was going to be allowed to speak there, which was then cancelled, and has since turned into the clusterfuck that it currently apparently is.

 

[desura]

https://nocara.blackblogs.org/2016/12/21/meet-the-damigos-all-american-white-supremacy/

What a pitiful person. Pretty sad. You can definitely see the frown of disappointment on that guy's face at all times.

The antifa only reinforce the dystopian side of him that went through prison. What he really needs is counseling and analysis.

This also is what happens when the GOP leadership led us into war. So sad. Such a shame a large segment of the US would rather invest in military conquest than alternative energy and efficiency.

 

[desura]

https://youtu.be/VwhJ_VixZDs

Better view of the punch.

She doesn't appear to be provoking anyone at the time and is simply in the area.

She doesn't look significantly harmed. She's back up pretty fast. Weak punch?

He runs away immediately.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Actually, I didn't clearly state that at all, it was a question, and your answer to my initial question is as vague as ever. I asked you what they have to protest about, at Berkeley of all places, and are they being oppressed there.

What exactly is your standard for what constitutes a protest? I gave you several specific examples. You've yet to explain how Berkeley being Berkeley is relevant, nor your arbitrary standard that one must apparently be oppressed in order to protest.

What is a "pro-Trump" protest about exactly? Are they going to protest that more people didn't vote for him, or that he hasn't been crowned as King Trump?

Some of the subjects include 1) opposition to Berkeley, seen as a part of the liberal "ivory tower", 2) opposition to ANTIFA, which has a strong presence in the Bay Area, 3) opposition to ANTIFA's actions in shutting down right-wing speakers like Milo, 4) opposition to George Soros, a boogieman accused of funding ANTIFA. I've already stated these reasons. It's basically a "Fuck you, we can protest here as well" to the left-wing.

The point of a protest is to send a clear message about what a group considers to be unsatisfactory with something in our society and that they wish to draw public and media attention to. There is no message here, at least certainly not one that you or I have been able to discern, yet you continue to argue as if this is a freedom of speech issue.

The group is ANTIFA. This counter-protest specifically targeted the "group consider[ed] to be unsatisfactory" in their heartland.

I haven't attacked these people for their message, I've criticised them for their entire lack of message. The reason that I called them neo-nazis is because pretty much all the coverage of this incident labels them as "alt-right", to which I see very little to discern that from neo-nazi-ism, or to dispute the use of that label in this case.

I've no idea where I'm supposed to have attacked anyone's social status.

So you're saying they do have a message of white supremacy? Neo-Nazis are allowed to protest publicly in America. The ACLU (ironically hated by all flavors of the right-wing) has defended neo-Nazi and KKK marches through minority neighborhoods in the past, for example.

 

[Blue_Max]

My man, Dave (Computing Forever) has an excellent take on the situation. It's only a few minutes long so no excuses, Progressives.

 

[Blue_Max]

Yeh, people who decry racism are the real racists, obviously.

The people who falsely call others "racists" based on 'white privilege' (etc) are, indeed, racists.

If they take this from words to actions and laws they're also FASCISTS.

Congrats, progressives, you're becoming what you claim to hate most.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Progressives are becoming white supremecists?

 

[Blue_Max]

Progressives are becoming white supremecists?

No, just racists who see everyone white AS a white supremacist.

 

[snarfbot]

now we know why you misspelled cheese whiz, because you are illiterate.

 

[Blue_Max]

now we know why you misspelled cheese whiz, because you are illiterate.

Now, now... "cheez" is a thing... fake. A pale imitation of REAL cheese, yet often preferred for its simplicity.

Strangely appropriate. >

 

[ch33zw1z]

now we know why you misspelled cheese whiz, because you are illiterate.

Yup, you nailed it. How astute.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No, just racists who see everyone white AS a white supremacist.

So I see myself as a white supremecist, even though I'm white....interesting.

 

[WelshBloke]

The people who falsely call others "racists" based on 'white privilege' (etc) are, indeed, racists.

If they take this from words to actions and laws they're also FASCISTS.

Congrats, progressives, you're becoming what you claim to hate most.

Conveniently ignoring that the guy in the video in the OP is a racist and white supremacist.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Conveniently ignoring that the guy in the video in the OP is a racist and white supremacist.

They're renaming themselves as white nationalists, and hoping nobody noticed. Too late.

 

[WelshBloke]

My man, Dave (Computing Forever) has an excellent take on the situation. It's only a few minutes long so no excuses, Progressives.

I stopped at the "Trump supporters are being brutally beaten on the streets..." bit. I suppose that the beatings being handed out by the Trump supporters don't count.
Also antifa are "useful idiots" working on the government's behalf but a bunch of thugs who are pro government don't?

You think that the guy who made that video has a good handle on things? Yeah. There's a good reason why your view is so limited.

Also it's a nice example why I don't normally watch YouTube videos. If you can't make and explain your point yourself there's a damn good chance that you don't actually understand it.

 

[Jhhnn]

The people who falsely call others "racists" based on 'white privilege' (etc) are, indeed, racists.

If they take this from words to actions and laws they're also FASCISTS.

Congrats, progressives, you're becoming what you claim to hate most.

So oppressed, huh?