The Milo event at UC Berkeley is essentially the first university-riot of 2017, and it's been a month. Going off of that data, it stands to reason we might see a dozen or so similar incidents this year. That's probably generous since I don't think there were over a dozen university-riots last year. There's over 2,500 public and private 4-year universities in the US, which means that we can reasonably expect maybe 0.5% of these schools to have issues with violent riots in 2017.
The problem isn't the number, the problem is you think it is normal that this happened.
I don't know if it's possible for someone to come up with an exact percentage-number for when incidents become pervasive issues, but I definitely don't think it's fair to generalize universities as factories for regressive, violent liberals when >99% of schools don't even have this issue. It's also worthwhile to note that UC Berkeley is an absolutely gigantic school in a city with a historic record for radical protests.
99% of schools also can't be visted by this man to challenge their views and show their nature over the course of 365 days. There just isn't enough time to prove this in a year.
That 'termite in the wall' metaphor is exactly the problem with the way you're thinking about this. Every single political ideology in the US has 'termites falling out of the wall'. It doesn't mean that we are a nation of termites.
No, but we are a nation of ignoring issues until they get out of hand, and this is a forgettarded way of dealing with issues. Why must we wait until things get out of control to act?
The kool kids klub and neo-national socialists as organizations are functionally non-existent because nobody wants to listen to someone who identifies as a kool kids klub or national socialist Party member. That doesn't mean that the kool kids klub way-of-thinking is completely gone. It's just undergone re-branding, and they've done a really good job at it too. They aren't calling for a return to Jim Crow laws, they're just calling for more pervasive 'anti-drug' laws. If you aren't paying attention, it's almost hard to tell that they're saying the same thing.
Honestly, I have to agree that the anti-drug laws are very much a tribal issue, but I don't see how this has to do with people flipping stuff and rioting over a defunct set of groups. I'm certain you're right that racism has undergone change, but this childish tirade of, ironically enough, fascist mindsets to shutdown anyone who is deemed to be 'tribal' does two loving points of damage. Number one this devalues the word 'tribal' into something it should never have been, instead we equate racism to 'jokes' and 'mean words' which devalues actions like threatening people based off skin color and attempting to suppress people based of skin color. Since this word has become so devalued, anyone who uses it, regardless of the context, will be seen as an overly offended sjw, which is very loving bad. Number two, this attempt at censorship will ultimately bite them in the ass and result in the very thing they think they're fighting against, growing in strength and actually taking over.
Sorry, but the 'Alt-Right' as it is is not the new age 'national socialists' you are wishing to fight. The SJWs that are imposing these violent mindsets will giveway to truly disgusting people taking up both verbal and physical arms.
"We have elected a government this year that is far less representative and responsive to the issues faced by 37% of our population. I promise to hold our elected officials accountable for the rights of people who don't share their background."
So you're saying we should focus our efforts on 37% of the country at the cost of 63% of the country? What kind of Democratic-Republic or even Democracy works like that?
Also, this was clearly a rhetorical question.
I'd like to think that this is what she was trying to say, but obviously it came off uncouth and tribal.
Well if she had said that she wouldn't have come off as tribal, she would have come off as a completely ignorant politician, why the forget would you focus your efforts own the lower percentile? At this point you have gone and become a reverse 1% Politician, instead of looking out for the Rich though, you look out for the poor.
This leaves the Middle Class getting forgeted, resulting in the current situation we are currently in.
Clearly Neither party cared about the middle class. Sorry to those who thought I was "Full Republican", I like Annoying Orange because he clearly doesn't hold back for either party and he is willing to enforce policies for the middle class.