Trump threatens to cut funds to UC Berkeley after protest(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Trump threatens to cut funds to UC Berkeley after protest
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/02/trumps-threat-to-defund-berkeley-after-protest-of-breitbart-writer-makes-no-sense/?utm_term=.2eed8826bd31
70 comments
That wasn't a protest. That was a riot. Let's call a spade a spade for once. I dont't expect much from Jeff Bezos's personal blog, but here on HN standards should be higher.
Regardless of what you want to call it, the real question is why liberals are now fighting against civil liberties.
That's a pretty broad brush. I attended Cal and observed a sizable Anarchist population in Berkeley and Oakland that actually had nothing to do with the University. Were some of the rioters from Cal? Probably. I suspect the vast majority were not.
At least at the University level it seems like free speech was an important factor for deciding to allow hosting somebody with such an incendiary message. Here's the chancellor's statement: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-...
At least at the University level it seems like free speech was an important factor for deciding to allow hosting somebody with such an incendiary message. Here's the chancellor's statement: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-...
I don't think it's fair to blame 'liberals'. The University which expressed differences with the invitee's beliefs but invited him to speak, struggled to create a safe environment but ultimately was unable to do so, yes. They could be described as liberals. But violent protest is pretty much by definition an illiberal activity.
For example, would you describe the Black Panthers liberals? Personally I wouldn't. They may share some objectives with liberals - equal treatment of a minority - but methods matter. I would no more call those rioters liberals than I'd call white supremacists 'conservatives'.
For example, would you describe the Black Panthers liberals? Personally I wouldn't. They may share some objectives with liberals - equal treatment of a minority - but methods matter. I would no more call those rioters liberals than I'd call white supremacists 'conservatives'.
As far as I can tell from available news, no one "struggled" worth a damn to create a safe environment. In fact the opposite seems to be true: police was ordered to stand down, inviting the situation to get out of control.
> I would no more call those rioters liberals than I'd call white supremacists 'conservatives'.
Unfortunately, most of the rest of the country thinks otherwise.
Unfortunately, most of the rest of the country thinks otherwise.
Doublespeak works wonders. "No-platforming" and "The Paradox of Tolerance" are very hot topics of discussion among young leftists right now.
The real question is whether President Trump's threats are justifiable, but I'd settle for understanding how you justify your criticism of an entire bloc.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Milo has no god-enshrined right to hold a rally at a university campus, just like he has no god-enshrined right to hold one at the country club down the road. It is completely consistent to protest the establishments allowing him to do so.
There is also the argument that fascism is an existential threat to liberal democracy. See the paradox of tolerance.
There is also the argument that fascism is an existential threat to liberal democracy. See the paradox of tolerance.
You're missing the point though. They're protesting him because one of his Twitter followers called Leslie Jones an ape.
And yet they weren't throwing rocks at Bernie because his followers referred to black people as low-information voters. Nor were they protesting Hillary because her followers referred to Obama as a boy.
Do you really not see the double standard?
And yet they weren't throwing rocks at Bernie because his followers referred to black people as low-information voters. Nor were they protesting Hillary because her followers referred to Obama as a boy.
Do you really not see the double standard?
They're protesting him because one of his Twitter followers called Leslie Jones an ape.
Do you seriously, honestly believe that that is only or even primary reason people might have for protesting Milo?
Do you seriously, honestly believe that that is only or even primary reason people might have for protesting Milo?
> Do you seriously, honestly believe that that is only or even primary reason people might have for protesting Milo?
Yes. The reason most people are giving for protesting him is that he's racist, and the fact that one of his followers called Leslie Jones an ape is always cited as the reason for why he's racist.
If you don't believe me, look at the reasons the ADL gives for why he's racist:
http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrori...
Yes. The reason most people are giving for protesting him is that he's racist, and the fact that one of his followers called Leslie Jones an ape is always cited as the reason for why he's racist.
If you don't believe me, look at the reasons the ADL gives for why he's racist:
http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrori...
How about when he publicly doxxed and insulted a transgender student at UW-Milwaukee as another reason to protest him among many many other valid reasons?
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a...
> They're protesting him because one of his Twitter followers called Leslie Jones an ape.
There's a million reasons to protest this guy. You're missing the forest through the trees, by focusing on only one (That you consider absurd or hypocritical).
Bernie Sanders also didn't speak out in support of a muslim ban, or building a wall, or deporting millions of people... But Milo sure did.
There's a million reasons to protest this guy. You're missing the forest through the trees, by focusing on only one (That you consider absurd or hypocritical).
Bernie Sanders also didn't speak out in support of a muslim ban, or building a wall, or deporting millions of people... But Milo sure did.
He does at public universities.
No, he doesn't. Universities are free to choose who they will invite to speak. He is using campus facilities - specifically, lecture halls for his rally. They have the right to refuse.
If he held his rally on the lawn, that would be a different story.
If he held his rally on the lawn, that would be a different story.
He was holding a rally?
Threatening to cut federal funding for a major public university after an event like this, however disastrous, is exactly what I'd expect from an authoritarian dictator and not the president of the United States. Had the roles been reversed and right wing protesters started a riot due to an extreme left wing speaker, does anyone honestly believe Trump would have reacted this way? For the record, I'm not trying to excuse the actions of those who acted violently/destructively.
The question is, does he have the power to do this? It seems to me every time someone speaks up against him, he has the power to do damages - either by firing, cutting funds, banning the press, etc. My understanding of the "checks and balances" should be that not a single person - including someone as powerful as the president - should be able to do that.
[deleted]
Can a HN mod comment on why this was flagged? I'd be interested to know why.
Articles are flagged if enough people click the 'flag' button. Mods are generally not involved.
[deleted]
I'm not sure I totally agree with the idea to cut funds, but there is certainly a problem where protesters have forgotten how to be peaceable.
This is kind of a natural out growth of the "ends justify the means" philosophy.
Since people replying can't seem to read critically let me clarify. I didn't say ALL or most protests haven't been peaceable. Because you can cite peaceful ones does not mean that there is not a problem because we are clearly having non-peaceful ones too!
This is kind of a natural out growth of the "ends justify the means" philosophy.
Since people replying can't seem to read critically let me clarify. I didn't say ALL or most protests haven't been peaceable. Because you can cite peaceful ones does not mean that there is not a problem because we are clearly having non-peaceful ones too!
The vast majority of recent protests in this country have been completely peaceful. I don't think it's a problem of protesters forgetting how to be peaceful, but rather small group(s) of violent people that are drawn to certain protests with the intention of violence.
"but rather small group(s) of violent people" called Black Blocks and payed by a certain infamous oligarch...
do you see the pattern? this is another arab spring ( or color revolution if you prefer ) but this time in the US
seriously, when will the people understand what is really happening?
the aristocracies are trying to reassert their "divine" rights upon the ignorant masses
do you see the pattern? this is another arab spring ( or color revolution if you prefer ) but this time in the US
seriously, when will the people understand what is really happening?
the aristocracies are trying to reassert their "divine" rights upon the ignorant masses
What you're saying there is just violent groups of people who are showing up to places randomly to be violent for no reason other than to be violent.
That's just ignorance. There are people showing up to protest something with the intention of being violent. They weren't there by accident, or random luck. They (those few violent ones) were protestors who had forgotten how to be peaceable.
That's just ignorance. There are people showing up to protest something with the intention of being violent. They weren't there by accident, or random luck. They (those few violent ones) were protestors who had forgotten how to be peaceable.
The largest protest in American history was just held last month and was completely peaceful.
This event had a set of 10-12 agitators.
This event had a set of 10-12 agitators.
So 10-12 out of hundreds/thousands of individuals? Then how come these peaceful protesters didn't isolate/restrain/identify/pepper-spray/anything these violent agitator individuals?
I'd say that sounds like more than 10-12, or those 10-12 had a whole lot more "peaceful" supporters supporting/cheering them in their criminal activities.
I'd say that sounds like more than 10-12, or those 10-12 had a whole lot more "peaceful" supporters supporting/cheering them in their criminal activities.
Given how often violence is started by police officers, I wouldn't jump to this conclusion. False flag operations also occur, in order to being about exactly the sentiment you're expressing.
Agreed, but with the information provided that doesn't seem to be the case with this incident.
Additionally, in the age of camera phones and live streaming, the best place to fight/resist cops is in court and not the street. Your chances of success are far greater. I would hope UC Berkeley students would know this.
Additionally, in the age of camera phones and live streaming, the best place to fight/resist cops is in court and not the street. Your chances of success are far greater. I would hope UC Berkeley students would know this.
No good will come of this. Certainly no one walks away holding the moral high ground.
This time, like it or not, Milo did exactly that.
No he didn't. He didn't go. That's not moral high ground, that's common sense.
Why do you think that? The students showed they will not tolerate her hate speech, so she cancelled it.
"The students showed they will not tolerate her hate speech..."
1) Milo is male.
2) As the university's chief of police says in the article, she does not believe students were involved in the vandalism.
and 3) What qualifies this as "hate speech"?
1) Milo is male.
2) As the university's chief of police says in the article, she does not believe students were involved in the vandalism.
and 3) What qualifies this as "hate speech"?
FTA: “I do not believe our students were involved in the vandalism and the violent behavior that occurred,” the university's police chief, Margo Bennet, told reporters. “This was a group of agitators who were masked up, throwing rocks, commercial-grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails at officers. Those were not our students. That's not our students' behavior.”
At this point I'm far more curious about the behavior of the so-called police force last night.
At this point I'm far more curious about the behavior of the so-called police force last night.
[deleted]
Well, at similar protests at UW, where one of Milo's supporters shot an unarmed man, the police released him without charges.
This should tell you exactly where the police stand, vis-a-vis fascism in America.
This should tell you exactly where the police stand, vis-a-vis fascism in America.
Why exactly was he not charged? The police aren't exactly there to say "oh yea you did it .. but you're free to go" They're highly incentivized to put people in jail.
> They're highly incentivized to put people in jail.
Not really; they get paid the same either way. Absent a leadership focus on specific categories of crime or groups of offenders, or personal biases, police don't have a lot of incentive to put anybody in jail.
Not really; they get paid the same either way. Absent a leadership focus on specific categories of crime or groups of offenders, or personal biases, police don't have a lot of incentive to put anybody in jail.
He had a classic excuse - he felt threatened in the press of the crowd, so he fired a gun into it. Keep this one in mind if you ever get kettled.
He also lied about being attacked by a white supremacist (Who the victim most certainly was not.)
He also lied about being attacked by a white supremacist (Who the victim most certainly was not.)
It wasn't one of Milo's supporters, it was another (violent) protestor.
[Edit] Seems I have been misinformed.
He was absolutely one of Milo's supporters (Regardless how much Milo is trying to distance himself from him) - his facebook page makes his love for all things Milo, Trump, and the NRA clear.
A reminder that at a similar protest in Seattle just last week one of the protesters was shot by one of Milo's supporters. The shooter was not arrested and has not been charged. But you know, breaking window's is pretty bad too.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/shooting-mil...
What's your point? The shooter claims self defense, willingly turned himself in, and the victim doesn't want to file charges.
I watched some of the live streaming of the protests and it was pretty insane - not just "breaking windows" but pepper spraying the opposition, lighting property on fire, throwing molotov cocktails and fireworks, and one instance of beating a guy unconscious and kicking him on the ground.
It wasn't just "breaking windows" and whether you're left, right, or north - you should be vehemently disapproving it.
I watched some of the live streaming of the protests and it was pretty insane - not just "breaking windows" but pepper spraying the opposition, lighting property on fire, throwing molotov cocktails and fireworks, and one instance of beating a guy unconscious and kicking him on the ground.
It wasn't just "breaking windows" and whether you're left, right, or north - you should be vehemently disapproving it.
Fake news. Antifa thug was shot by a man whose identity or political affiliation hasn't been disclosed, in self defense. How do we know it was in self defense? UW police said so, after releasing him.
Actually fake news is only used by the right.
No, one protestor mistook the "anti-fascist" tattoo on another protestor as implying support for fascism, and so shot him.
The violence was all carried out by those trying to shut down the free speech of a gay Jew who only dates black men.
The violence was all carried out by those trying to shut down the free speech of a gay Jew who only dates black men.
Are those more "alternative facts"? Because your summary isn't remotely accurate. The shooter was there in support of Milo, he wasn't a protester. And it was his second confrontation of the night - quite the victim.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/uw-shooting/
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/uw-shooting/
I've heard from a number of people who were there that the shooter was a Milo fan who was visibly intoxicated and picking fights all night. The man he shot was trying to break up a fight he started. Notice the victim wasn't wearing a mask, like the more aggressive antifa guys.
Police have not called it self defense, it's still under investigation. It's really astonishing the amount of misinformation going around about this. It always has to be a false-flag, I guess.
Police have not called it self defense, it's still under investigation. It's really astonishing the amount of misinformation going around about this. It always has to be a false-flag, I guess.
Do you have a citation for that since it goes against every report I've seen.
Protest is just another form of expressing free speech - besides that, I fail to see what Milo being a "gay Jew who only dates black men" has to do with anything?
[deleted]
Who cares. the UC Berkeley student's parents will fund it then.
But seriously, I'm not fond of the city of Berkeley, but Milo going there was the equivalent to attempted suicide.
But seriously, I'm not fond of the city of Berkeley, but Milo going there was the equivalent to attempted suicide.
I'm sorry, but the fact our president doesn't actually understand what free speech means is appalling.
Free speech doesn't mean a college has to give you a platform from which to spew your hate speech. Ironically him threatening to defund them over this is actually a borderline violation of the college's free speech rights.
Free speech doesn't mean a college has to give you a platform from which to spew your hate speech. Ironically him threatening to defund them over this is actually a borderline violation of the college's free speech rights.
Free speech doesn't mean guerrilla warfare either. The radical chics should learn that losing is a fact of life.
If they have federal funding they do. (Amongst a lot of other things that they're required to enforce)
No, the receipt of federal funding does not require that the receiver grant a platform to all comers. That would be absurd.
Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.
Hate speech is a concept that does not exist in American law. It is not one of the exceptions to the 1A (such as obscenity or slander).
I'm halfway glad too.
Would you elaborate as to what you mean, preferably with some examples? The US has generally been pretty liberal in protecting free speech. For example, affording the KKK protection to march in Skokie, Illinois.
The college did give him a platform. The kids in ninja costumes took it away.
Almost every programmer I follow on Twitter cheered and praised them while they threw bombs, lit fires, beat and pepper sprayed people. I guess programmers do see themselves as ninjas, after all.
Almost every programmer I follow on Twitter cheered and praised them while they threw bombs, lit fires, beat and pepper sprayed people. I guess programmers do see themselves as ninjas, after all.