[NEWS] Violent UC Berkeley riots force cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event

Author Topic: [NEWS] Violent UC Berkeley riots force cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event  (Read 37818 times)

Like it's not even fun to rag on Tony at this point. He has such low self esteem that he doesn't even fight back. The only way to garner a reaction out of him is if you say that No Mans Sky is a stuffty game.
this is so true ahaha

So a termite drops out of the wall and you think the issue is just that one termite?  How many instances of campus insanity do you want?  Pick a number. 
Honestly just this latest incident should be enough - Milo says that trigger warnings are bullstuff, fat shaming works, and that cities and universities don't have the right to subvert federal immigration law, and 1000+ people come out to protest with 150 rioters?  It's widespread infantile madness.
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.

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.

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.

If you want to talk about overreacting - what's the chant these days?  "No _____, No kool kids klub, no fascist USA".  How many kool kids klub members do you think there actually are?  They had a march a while ago and they had like 8 people.  Anyone in the kool kids klub is already a national pariah. 
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.

How would you have phrased it?  In your own words, tell us how the DNC chair should shut down white people without looking like a tribal. 
"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."

I'd like to think that this is what she was trying to say, but obviously it came off uncouth and tribal.

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.

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.
THIS JUST IN: MILO IS PROVEN TO BE THE SOLE CAUSE OF RIOTS

i know what you actually mean but loving hell improve your english lad

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?
Normally, I embargo arguing with you, but I'm gonna make an exception since this is an actually important question. I'm not at all opposed to people reporting on and speaking out against violence and riots. I am fully aware that riots are an ineffective way of changing society, and I recognize that it's important for the good of society to shut that stuff down.

What I oppose is this philosophy among internet reactionaries that because a small number of liberals/BLM members/whatever engage in violent protest, it means that everyone in those groups is a violent radical. What follows from this mindset is that the issues that they're actually rioting about are rendered illegitimate and nobody wants to fix them anymore, which is ultimately even more disastrous than the protests themselves.

You can see it on the internet already. Any time a discussion comes up about police brutality, it devolves into 'look at what these BLM members did in ___'. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if there were never riots to begin with, but history has shown us that there will always be riots when significant social issues are left unresolved by the powers at be.

I think there is a reasonable, bipartisan compromise for this issue. We can both decry riots and violence, while at the same time looking at the issues people are rioting about. We don't have to divide ourselves by party lines and force ourselves to either defend rioters or defend police brutality. There's absolutely a middle-ground here.

THIS JUST IN: MILO IS PROVEN TO BE THE SOLE CAUSE OF RIOTS

i know what you actually mean but loving hell improve your english lad
Yeah, whoops.
But to be fair, he is one the most well known to speak against their views, so it is a lot more likely for him to piss these types of people off.

While they admittedly have a stranglehold on some areas (like Uni) I don't think it's really fair to say they have a grip on Hollywood and the Mainstream Media and everything with a Liberal slant because radically authoritarian guilt-based discrimination is an extreme minority compared to the vast majority of liberals.

Someone hasn't read Primetime Propaganda by Ben Shapiro, a book in which contains a list of interviews with some of the more famous Hollywood directors who say flat-out that they would never hire a conservative actor and who fill their programs with leftist crap. Add onto that the refusal to admit any wrongdoing when the book came out, and you can see clearly why the entertainment industry is entirely within leftist control.

Also,
Celebrities plea for electoral college to undermine the republic
was there any counter-video to this put out by Hollywood? I'll give you a short answer, no there wasn't. What was the last big movie Jon Voight was in? Why can't this movie get any big press while I see the trailer to this piece of ass before almost every Youtube video? Face it, bud. The left controls the entertainment industry, and I'll be honest, as a conservative who's looking to go into the entertainment industry, I am genuinely worried that this is going to affect me negatively.

As for the media, you can take a look at the reluctance to call the #BLMKidnapping a hate crime, or the constant mislabelling of leftist riots as "protests" or Mr. hotshot CNN over here just flat-out lying to us during the election. Take a look at this gem, too. They almost didn't apologize for that.

You might want to watch this, also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq86Beh3T70

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.
what was that argument for the electoral college, again?

Someone hasn't read Primetime Propaganda by Ben Shapiro, a book in which contains a list of interviews with some of the more famous Hollywood directors who say flat-out that they would never hire a conservative actor and who fill their programs with leftist crap. Add onto that the refusal to admit any wrongdoing when the book came out, and you can see clearly why the entertainment industry is entirely within leftist control.

Also,was there any counter-video to this put out by Hollywood? I'll give you a short answer, no there wasn't. What was the last big movie Jon Voight was in? Why can't this movie get any big press while I see the trailer to this piece of ass before almost every Youtube video? Face it, bud. The left controls the entertainment industry, and I'll be honest, as a conservative who's looking to go into the entertainment industry, I am genuinely worried that this is going to affect me negatively.

As for the media, you can take a look at the reluctance to call the #BLMKidnapping a hate crime, or the constant mislabelling of leftist riots as "protests" or Mr. hotshot CNN over here just flat-out lying to us during the election. Take a look at this gem, too. They almost didn't apologize for that.

You might want to watch this, also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq86Beh3T70

I don't know why anyone would read anything by Ben Shapiro, but ok.

Also, the myth that Hollywood is "left-wing" is bullstuff. Yeah, you get awards speeches by celebrities about diversity and loveuality all the time, but it's contained within a bubble of superficial centrist garbage that panders to people's liberal sensibilities. The studios are run by white people, the majority of producers are white, white actors and actresses get most of the recognition. Trust me, Hollywood isn't "left" outside of their canned speeches about liberal politics. The most telling thing should be that the same night the protests at JFK were going on, the SAG awards were that night and a ton of celebrities gave speeches about how terrible the Muslim ban was instead of joining the swath of protesters in the streets. Hollywood isn't run by leftists, it's run by neoliberals disguised as leftists.

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?
Helping 1% over helping 99% of the population could be easily justified by circumstances

Say 1% of the population is systematically dying and 99% of the population isn't, focusing on that 1% is waaay more important because the other 99% isn't actively endangered. This is like saying "should i help Bob who just lost his family to a raging fire and lost his entire home and wealth and is also suffering from AIDS, or should I help Steve who stubbed his toe the other day?" Obviously if 37% of the population was Bob and the other 63% was Steve, helping Bob would be the utmost concern.

Arguing about who is more deserving of help objectively is still just as difficult, since people love to belittle real-life and serious issues for the sake of their own fake fantasy. Both sides do it all the time, from "the patriarchy is oppressing me!!!" to "they're stealing my jobs!!!" to "we're all going to be forced to conform to islam!!!" It's important that you put the superstitious bullstuff on hold and actually fix real loving issues.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 10:23:12 AM by PhantOS »

I don't know why anyone would read anything by Ben Shapiro, but ok.

Also, the myth that Hollywood is "left-wing" is bullstuff. Yeah, you get awards speeches by celebrities about diversity and loveuality all the time, but it's contained within a bubble of superficial centrist garbage that panders to people's liberal sensibilities. The studios are run by white people, the majority of producers are white, white actors and actresses get most of the recognition. Trust me, Hollywood isn't "left" outside of their canned speeches about liberal politics. The most telling thing should be that the same night the protests at JFK were going on, the SAG awards were that night and a ton of celebrities gave speeches about how terrible the Muslim ban was instead of joining the swath of protesters in the streets. Hollywood isn't run by leftists, it's run by neoliberals disguised as leftists.

well you responded to almost none of my questions but let me elaborate on Primetime Propaganda:

Quote from: Wikipedia
As one part of the evidence, Shapiro presents statements from taped interviews made by celebrities and TV show creators from Hollywood whom he interviewed for the book. The book include quotes from, amongst others, the co-creator of Friends, Marta Kauffman, and the creator of Soap and Golden Girls, Susan Harris. Another argument is that conservatives are shunned in the industry. For example, Vin Di Bona, a producer responsible for a large number of hit television shows, agreed during an interview with Shapiro that Hollywood promotes a liberal political agenda, commenting, "I'm happy about it, actually." Di Bona also said that MacGyver, the cult hit show on which he was a producer, promoted an anti-gun movement position, as the character of MacGyver does not use a gun, but rather his own intelligence. People involved with television shows M*A*S*H and Happy Days told Shapiro that the series had pacifistic and anti-Vietnam War agendas. Another example is the television show Sesame Street which is accused of deliberately spreading left-wing propaganda to children.

Producer Leonard Goldberg stated to Shapiro that in the industry liberalism is "100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth," and when Shapiro asked if politics are a barrier to entry replied, "Absolutely."

Producer and director Nicholas Meyer replied "Well, I hope so," when asked if conservatives are discriminated against, and stated regarding the 1983 made-for-TV film The Day After that, "My private, grandiose notion was that this movie would unseat Ronald Reagan when he ran for re-election."

Executive Fred Silverman stated regarding TV comedy nowadays that "...there’s only one perspective, and it’s a very progressive perspective. And if you want the other perspective... well it's just not there right now."

TV series COPS creator John Langley stated that he prefers showing segments where whites are the criminals because he fears that he would be promoting negative stereotypes.

Shapiro states that he was "...shocked by the openness of the Hollywood crowd when it came to admitting anti-conservative discrimination inside the industry". He argues that nepotism in Hollywood rarely is familial, but rather is ideological by friends hiring friends with the same ideological views: "The same people who talk about tolerance and diversity have no tolerance for ideological diversity." He also states: "...the liberal content we see on primetime television and in daytime soaps is typically hidden in plot and character...I go through probably 100 shows in detail in Primetime Propaganda – and virtually all of them are messaged, either blatantly or subtly."

Portions of some of the interviews which were released onto the internet to promote the book, particularly the Di Bona interview, caused the director and producer Lionel Chetwynd to resign from the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors. In an open letter, he wrote about the reaction of other members of the caucus to Republican Party politicians: "In preparing his book, Mr. Shapiro interviewed a large number of our Hollywood notables on the subject of diversity -- not the sacrosanct melange of race, religion, gender orientation and the like, but a more challenging diversity: that of opinion and policy. The vast majority felt quite comfortable endorsing discrimination against those whose political philosophy was not rooted in the reflexive Leftism of Hollywood," and "I knew most of my fellow members looked upon the political positions of these people as distasteful; what I now understand is the disgust was not for their views, but for their very person".

Another argument by Shapiro is that Hollywood has overemphasized the importance of the 18-49 market for advertisers. Initially, as admitted by executives during the taped interviews, this view was promoted by ABC in the late 1960s since the network had poor ratings and needed to increase advertising revenue in some way.

Shapiro argues that the situation may change quickly in future since new technologies, such content delivered by the Internet, may dramatically change the media landscape.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hollywood-idUSTRE7517JQ20110602
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-executives-admit-taped-interviews-193116

you also understate the leftist bias at the SAG awards, there was more than just sappy anti-immigration-ban speeches, there were literal calls to arms
notice how everyone in the audience is rallying with David Harbour here, BTW

when you say that all the nominal people are white, well, I think #OscarsSoWhite destroys the notion that that's an acceptable thing in Hollywood

the problem with Hollywood is not that it's completely leftist, it's that it thinks it's not leftist enough

Wikipedia is a biased source.

What ever happened to hunger strikes or just having a crowed with picket signs on the side of the road.

What ever happened to hunger strikes or just having a crowed with picket signs on the side of the road.
they are too boring and too effective for today's protesters

What ever happened to hunger strikes
they'd starve to death

having a crowed with picket signs on the side of the road.
they'd be ignored