No I don’t participate in riots. @circuitrider Why are you downplaying the damage that was done? - there was a lot more than just a broken door and some graffiti!
@circuitrider It really minimizes what occurred to say that “the only optics here were a broken door and some graffiti.”
According to CNN, “at least six people were injured. … The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO.” And, the video on CNN’s report looks worse to me than what you describe. But, I’ll let others decide for themselves.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/
I’ve looked at everything anyone has offered up on this thread and that’s my takeaway. If anything else happened it apparently did not occur within smartphone range - which says a lot.
FWIW, I also have the Vandy tape of Milos playing in the background and I have to wonder out loud what all the fuss is about? He’s basically a foul-mouthed entertainer who relies on people bugging out on the fact that he’s a self-identified gay man. He is as vulnerable to fact-checking as anyone else. Not sure why he’s a big deal.
There was a large amount of damage during the “celebration” when the Red Sox won the World Series back in 2003 or was it 2004. Cars turned over, parking meters bent to the ground.
This type of damage is not unique to protests.
I read on BBC (british and non partisan) that police were using tear gas to break up the violence.
Question: how hard is it to control a riot? Probably pretty hard. It would take an analysis to see whether the police had enough training and coordination, and strength, to try to quell the riot and to arrest effectively.
People here point to “no arrests” and equate that with acting improperly or allowing the violence to happen with impunity. It looks like they were taking maybe steps to protect people and property, but they were somewhat overwhelmed.
@circuitrider he is a big deal because he has been very successful at provoking yet he is a chameleon who is artful at adapting. In other words he plays with people’s heads and quite effectively so.
For instance his tour of the West Coast colleges was titled “The Faggot Tour” on his website - of course outrage ensued. His response is that those who objected were idiots as he is a gay man himself. When he was criticized for comparing Leslie Jones to an ape and of being racist he responds with “you people are stupid all my boyfriends are black” which as far as I can tell is true – but you can see what he does.
@thumper1 I totally agree that this type of damage is not unique to protests. But it is wrong when Red Sox fans did it, and it is wrong now.
And, lest anyone get the wrong impression, I am not by any means endorsing the merit of what the particular speaker here was likely to say. I don’t really care for the guy. But I think it is wrong for anyone on either side of any debate to engage in violence or to be so disruptive as to effectively shut down the other side’s right to speak.
Moderator’s Note: If people don’t curb the political speech this thread will be shut down.
It is probably even harder in this case because the violence-instigating group had obviously planned ahead (with masks to avoid being identified for arrest later, weapons, tactics to use the peaceful group as “human shields”, etc.) and was large – probably much larger than the police expected. Like so many other situations, the police’s job is defense, which is harder than offense, since the offense chooses how to attack and the defense must react.
Fun fact, a bunch of anarchists showed up and ruined what was otherwise a perfectly legitimate protest.
And I agree with @ucbalumnus . Lots of people go to protests with some sort of face cover both for privacy reasons and for protection from tear gas, mace, etc. If a bunch of masked assailants join in, there’s not much you can do to identify them short of catching them with the fireworks and fining them for that.
I was reflecting that it’s hard to imagine any kid who worked so hard to be accepted into Berkeley to self-sabotage in this way.
It just seems like: who would do that? It’s so so hard to get into Berkeley. And such a prize.
I find it very difficult to believe that students would do this.
@Dustyfeathers, some kids radicalize in college. Then too, book smarts and making good decisions are not necessarily parallel skills, know what I mean? So I wouldn’t discount the idea that some students were doing stupid stuff, or violent stuff, during the protests.
All that said, I think it is probably true that a lot of the serious violence started with the ANSWER/LaRaza types.
Probably the most eye-opening thing I learned after running two companies over 25 years is there are people who when they do not own something have no issue destroying whatever it is, even if it feeds them and treats them well. Note that the rioting was not against Berkley; it was against a speaker who is not even part of the school, but the response was to destroy school property.
However, this concept that it were no students involved really begs the question - who the heck is running Berkley? The school actually let’s people come in and destroy its property and endanger its students and does next to nothing? Seriously, think about how irresponsible that is to the students that pay to go there (again, assuming no students involved.) My parental takeaway is Berkley clearly does not give a damn about its students and their safety because they allowed this to happen to a Berkley student event.
This tells me all I need to know about the Berkley admin mindset and what they think about kids in its charge - not much. Only an idiot would send their kid there after knowing this is the admin’s attitude.
For the record, I believe that Berkley knows its students were involved and decided to not punish them because the admin is on their side on this.
“Normal people” do not go around destroying property they do not own just because they do not like the ideas stated by someone. “Normal people” hold their one forums and present their ideas and counter-arguments. They also can peacefully protest, but “normal people” see this rioting behavior as bottom of the barrel mentality. I always wonder, who the heck wants to follow such people? And I have come to the conclusion that not many do and that is good thing.
My Motto is
“I might not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
Too bad most college campuses today don’t aspire to this wisdom.
"My Motto is
“I might not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
I fear this is going to be put to the test in the coming months. I read that Richard Spencer, who is quite literally calling for ethnic cleansing in the US, will be launching his college tour. Get ready.
Milo Y is repugnant but IMO Richard Spencer is much, much worse. He will incite violence either in his name, against him, or, most likely, both. And yes, I’m aware he’s called for a “peaceful” ethnic cleansing, where they will just ask all the black people nicely to go back to Africa. And when they refuse?
My understanding the violent protesters were not students.
And, another day, another Milo Y protest. He thrives on this. What would be cool is if he spoke and no one showed up to hear him.
Since we are discussing what each of us defines as “normal” I will say that Milo Yiannopolous does not fit within my definition of the word. I say this because his speech time and time again incites violence and his own response to processing an alternative view is equally as objectionable as that of those he attacks. I can understand fully why college administrations struggle with trying to balance his right to expression against the safety of their students. The ultimate question they have to answer is does his speech rise to the level of “hate speech?”
CNN just posted an article online along with a video. The video documents scenes from some of his campus appearances which to me highlight the issues he presents to college administrators – one issue is the other very controversial groups who “poach” the event tagging along behind him. I think the video is way too political to post here but the title of the article is “Milo Yiannopoulos is trying to convince colleges that hate speech is cool.”
While I cannot get behind the violence on the Berkeley campus the video does bring home the very real issues that speakers like this present to college administrations. It’s just not as simple as saying he should be given a platform to express himself.
That is what I thought. Since they are masked, we don’t know who they are. However, I do think Berkeley needs to tell their protesting students they will be enforcing laws at protests. I saw the one they had where they were blocking students from walking to class. Surely that is not legal? I think it is harassment based on whatever reason they were not allowing them to pass by. For example, if they were not allowing whites to pass through, is there not a law about discrimination that would cover this scenario?
I have no issue with peaceful protests that do not obstruct the path of pedestrians. When protests fall outside of those parameters, the University should do something about it.