Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley

wolly.green

wolly.green

Permanent Fixture
MBTI
ENTP
Enneagram
4w5

What are your thoughts on what he has to say? Please try to control your emotions and watch the video objectively.
 
Let him speak and let people protest him then. I personally think everything he stands for is garbage and he's just a professional troll.
 
acd said:
Let him speak and let people protest him then. I personally think everything he stands for is garbage and he's just a professional troll.
Click to expand...

Well yes. But what specifically do you think of Berkeley's extended efforts to squash free speech? I don't like him either, but he has a point.
 
wolly.green said:
Well yes. But what specifically do you think of Berkeley's extended efforts to squash free speech? I don't like him either, but he has a point.
Click to expand...
I think they are probably afraid of riots. I think Milo could care less if anyone anywhere suffers over what he says.... Because it's his brand and how he makes his living. I don't actually think he cares anything about free speech and I doubt he really even cares about what he is talking about. He is just an agitator. I think that it is likely he is seen as just an agitator looking to cause trouble.

I don't agree with not letting him speak. I think it just gives his garbage cause credibility in the eyes of susceptible people. It's playing into his hand because it gives him more to bitch about and whip people up about. I think ideally, the school and professors who oppose his schtick should talk to students who want to protest about how to peacefully and effectively deal with agitators.

Actually, wouldn't it be great if he had his whole speech and a few lonely alt-right dudes showed up and the whole thing was mostly treated as barely worthy of mention? I think that is best case scenario. Ideally, he would just quietly go away in embarrassment because he's only after the attention. But that won't happen because people are going to riot over someone who calls himself a professional troll...
 
Last edited:
acd said:
I think they are probably afraid of riots. I think Milo could care less if anyone anywhere suffers over what he says.... Because it's his brand and how he makes his living. I don't actually think he cares anything about free speech and I doubt he really even cares about what he is talking about. He is just an agitator. I think that it is likely he is seen as just an agitator looking to cause trouble.

I don't agree with not letting him speak. I think it just gives his garbage cause credibility in the eyes of susceptible people. It's playing into his hand because it gives him more to bitch about and whip people up about. I think ideally, the school and professors who oppose his schtick should talk to students who want to protest about how to peacefully and effectively deal with agitators.

Actually, wouldn't it be great if he had his whole speech and a few lonely alt-right dudes showed up and the whole thing was mostly treated as barely worthy of mention? I think that is best case scenario. Ideally, he would just quietly go away in embarrassment because he's only after the attention. But that won't happen because people are going to riot over someone who calls himself a professional troll...
Click to expand...

But this is even worse. This implies that the left is too emotionally incompetent to deal with opposition? Which means they are nothing short of a violent gang?
 
wolly.green said:
But this is even worse. This implies that the left is too emotionally incompetent to deal with opposition? Which means they are nothing short of a violent gang?
Click to expand...
Peaceful protestors tend to out number the violent ones. There are always those in a group that want to exploit a situation for their own reasons or those who just aren't competent at dealing with agitators. It's always been that way when two sides are in opposition. So, no. I wouldn't say I think the left are inherently a violent gang, but realistically all it takes are a small group on whatever side to create a problem, and maybe Berkeley is thinking is it even worth it for this troll?
 
Last edited:
I just don't believe anything he says. He frames the story as they hate me, they want to stop me and I won't let them stop me. It's casting himself as a victim and a hero. And of course, dismisses entirely Berkeley's side, which is trying to manage the violence while allowing speakers to speak. It is textbook behavior of a vulnerable narcissist.

I think he is part of a group of people with an agenda to prove that liberalism is wrong/dead, mock its ideals and attack its institutions. Berkeley has become one of their main symbols and there is nothing the university can do that is going to change their rhetoric, like Obama and birtherism.

This is a fight. It is something this generation of Berkeley grads will cut their teeth on and I wish them luck. I have no doubt they will stand their ground, as they have been doing these past few months, and expose the mockery of these so-called Americans for the shallowness of their own beliefs. Because Milos and Bannon and Ann and Alex don't believe in anything. There is no meaning in their words. They are, as Faulkner once wrote, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
@Chickensoup I agree. The alt-right is really just a troll fest. There is no real substantial thought there. There is no foundation because it is just built on trolling. It's all memes and jokes and trying to rile people up. At best, sometimes it's just revisionist history trying to dress itself up smartly. There are a few threads on this forum trying to discuss their ideas and they are all littered with historical inaccuracies and daydreams of an idealized past.
 
Last edited:
acd said:
Peaceful protestors tend to out number the violent ones. There are always those in a group that want to exploit a situation for their own reasons or those who just aren't competent at dealing with agitators. It's always been that way when two sides are in opposition. So, no. I wouldn't say I think the left are inherently a violent gang, but realistically all it takes are a small group on whatever side to create a problem, and maybe Berkeley is thinking is it even worth it for this troll?
Click to expand...

Ok I don't want to start a fight, so just a caveat. I'm not trying to be a dick ok? All I want to do is have a conversation. This is for everyone, not just you acd.

Yes its true that a small minority always ruin it for everyone else. But this just raises another question: why is there violent opposition for Milo, but not for a majority of speakers on the left? The threat of violence would have been much smaller if the speaker was a modern day liberal. This seems to imply that the left is inherently more violent than the right?
 
Chickensoup said:
I just don't believe anything he says. He frames the story as they hate me, they want to stop me and I won't let them stop me. It's casting himself as a victim and a hero. And of course, dismisses entirely Berkeley's side, which is trying to manage the violence while allowing speakers to speak. It is textbook behavior of a vulnerable narcissist.

I think he is part of a group of people with an agenda to prove that liberalism is wrong/dead, mock its ideals and attack its institutions. Berkeley has become one of their main symbols and there is nothing the university can do that is going to change their rhetoric, like Obama and birtherism.

This is a fight. It is something this generation of Berkeley grads will cut their teeth on and I wish them luck. I have no doubt they will stand their ground, as they have been doing these past few months, and expose the mockery of these so-called Americans for the shallowness of their own beliefs. Because Milos and Bannon and Ann and Alex don't believe in anything. There is no meaning in their words. They are, as Faulkner once wrote, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Click to expand...

Again Caveat. I am not trying to start an argument. So please don't take my comments personally, they are not meant to be personal.

This may be so, but is this a reason to curb free speech? Remember, their views are a reflection of a huge chunk of American citizens. No matter how you spin it, by preventing them from speaking, you are effectively blocking the views of many Americans that have just as much right as you to be heard. Which is inherently unfair.
 
wolly.green said:
Ok I don't want to start a fight, so just a caveat. I'm not trying to be a dick ok? All I want to do is have a conversation. This is for everyone, not just you acd.

Yes its true that a small minority always ruin it for everyone else. But this just raises another question: why is there violent opposition for Milo, but not for a majority of speakers on the left? The threat of violence would have been much smaller if the speaker was a modern day liberal. This seems to imply that the left is inherently more violent than the right?
Click to expand...
They are clearly capable of violence as well. And we have seen this in Charlottesville, for example. But they're really a small group and had to travel from all around the country even then and still, they didn't out number local counter protestors.
 
Milos spoke at Berkeley. He was probably protesting his lack of free speech while speaking there. So, why do you believe him when he claims he's being denied free speech?

Berkeley spent something like $600k for security when Shapiro spoke. I'm pretty sure they'll be waiting until hell freezes over before receiving some thanks by him for allowing him to speak and for footing that security bill. I'm pretty sure he'll be complaining about how there's no free speech at Berkeley in short order.

So, I ask again, why believe their assertions?
 
wolly.green said:
Ok I don't want to start a fight, so just a caveat. I'm not trying to be a dick ok? All I want to do is have a conversation. This is for everyone, not just you acd.

Yes its true that a small minority always ruin it for everyone else. But this just raises another question: why is there violent opposition for Milo, but not for a majority of speakers on the left? The threat of violence would have been much smaller if the speaker was a modern day liberal. This seems to imply that the left is inherently more violent than the right?
Click to expand...
You're just saying that because you're a [insert random insulting intended adjective] male.

On a serious note, I tend to agree with you.
If you don't agree with him, fine. But let Milo frame, or troll, let him say whatever or whoever he wants. If you feel insulted, remember that offense is taken, not given.
 
Chickensoup said:
Berkeley spent something like $600k for security when Shapiro spoke. I'm pretty sure they'll be waiting until hell freezes over before receiving some thanks by him for allowing him to speak and for footing that security bill. I'm pretty sure he'll be complaining about how there's no free speech at Berkeley in short order.
Click to expand...
So in conclusion, you want Shapiro to be grateful and pay for the privilege of being threatened and assaulted?
 
acd said:
They are clearly capable of violence as well. And we have seen this in Charlottesville, for example. But they're really a small group and had to travel from all around the country even then and still, they didn't out number local counter protestors.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the Charlottesville thing, but otherwise good point!
 
He ought to thank the university for keeping him for being assaulted. And since it is a public university, he ought to thank the taxpayers of California as well.

The "privilege of being threatened and assaulted" is something he brought on himself, and brought to the school. So yeah, great to have you, please don't ever come back.
 
I take that back - apparently Shapiro did thank the university for allowing him to speak and providing the insane amount of security.
 
wolly.green said:
why is there violent opposition for Milo, but not for a majority of speakers on the left?
Click to expand...

He threatened to expose undocumented students at his speech. I don't know many speakers on the "left" that would do that.
 
wolly.green said:
Milo denied those claims though.... So that's not really an excuse for the violence.
Click to expand...

Even if this was complete bullshit, the trouble is that it seems believable. Milo is a guy who could very well do something like that just for attention, not thinking about the wider ramifications. (That's me being very charitable btw)

There are right wind speakers at universities all over the place. And Harvard have recently cancelled Chelsea Manning over a complaint. Milo doesn't make up "the right." No matter how much he acts like the most important man on Earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top