Leftist Riot Du Jour - UC Berkeley

[Forty Two]

And your reply is a non-sequitur. Those "leftists" weren't burning a liberal's sign. They were burning a rightists sign, because as you yourself point out, the rightists are rank hypocrites.

Who are these rightists you're referring to? Can you define them?

Bigoted Trump supporters.

Great. Let me know when there are news articles related to that subset of Trump supporters' activities....

[pErvinalia]

Back under your rock.

[Forty Two]

Burning a sign with two words on it is hardly a noteworthy suppression of free speech.

LOL, it's not itself a suppression of free speech. It's an expression of opposition to free speech. He's saying what's on his mind. Christ, dude....

So what's the problem then? Does the guy burning the sign claim he has a right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants?

Yes, he does have that right, and pointing out that he is expressing a view against free speech by exercising his free speech to burn a placard which states "freedom of speech" on it, as if he wishes to immolate the right of free speech, doesn't take away that right. Nor does it take away his right, to point out that his view appears to be very totalitarian or authoritarian in nature, implying that he has a right to publicly set fire to things to send a message, while at the same time opposing the right of individuals to say what they want.

The guy burning the sign appears to claim he has the right to burn the sign. I have no idea if he claims to have the right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants. He seems to believe he has the right to express his viewpoint, and he hasn't asked anybody for permission, has he? Doesn't freedom of speech mean we each have that same right?

[Forty Two]

Back under your rock.

[pErvinalia]

Burning a sign with two words on it is hardly a noteworthy suppression of free speech.

LOL, it's not itself a suppression of free speech. It's an expression of opposition to free speech. He's saying what's on his mind. Christ, dude....

So what's the problem then? Does the guy burning the sign claim he has a right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants?

Yes, he does have that right, and pointing out that he is expressing a view against free speech by exercising his free speech to burn a placard which states "freedom of speech" on it, as if he wishes to immolate the right of free speech, doesn't take away that right. Nor does it take away his right, to point out that his view appears to be very totalitarian or authoritarian in nature, implying that he has a right to publicly set fire to things to send a message, while at the same time opposing the right of individuals to say what they want.

The guy burning the sign appears to claim he has the right to burn the sign. I have no idea if he claims to have the right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants. He seems to believe he has the right to express his viewpoint, and he hasn't asked anybody for permission, has he? Doesn't freedom of speech mean we each have that same right?

You haven't explained what exactly the problem is here. What is your specific problem with this guy burning the sign?

Regarding your last paragraph, all freedoms have some limitations. You can't express all viewpoints freely under the law (like shouting "bomb" on a plane).

[Woodbutcher]

In any of these protests you get people who believe in the right of people to protest against what they believe to be wrongs. You also get fucking hooligans who are there to seek attention and cause as much damage under the guise of protesting, it just gives them a stage to perform in. In Canada we get fucking hockey riots where gangs of criminals come to break things and steal and burn. The worst troublemakers care nothing for the reason for the protest, they are there to perform and, hopefully, to loot. They are going to a protest for personal gain, they'll be at a republican protest, democrat, leftist and islamic protest with their faces covered. They should be shot on sight, or at least trashed by the legitimate protesters. If I organized a protest, I'd have my own security there with 24"X1" galvanized pipe nipples at hand to keep order.

[pErvinalia]

Back under your rock.

You really don't get it, do you? Things that the rest of the educated world consider common knowledge, you apparently have never heard. It's either a case of massive naivety and insularity (i.e. as what would come from one who spent their life living under a rock), or you are simply trolling. Either way, it's not good for you.

[pErvinalia]

In any of these protests you get people who believe in the right of people to protest against what they believe to be wrongs. You also get fucking hooligans who are there to seek attention and cause as much damage under the guise of protesting, it just gives them a stage to perform in. In Canada we get fucking hockey riots where gangs of criminals come to break things and steal and burn. The worst troublemakers care nothing for the reason for the protest, they are there to perform and, hopefully, to loot. They are going to a protest for personal gain, they'll be at a republican protest, democrat, leftist and islamic protest with their faces covered. They should be shot on sight, or at least trashed by the legitimate protesters. If I organized a protest, I'd have my own security there with 24"X1" galvanized pipe nipples at hand to keep order.

So a right to protest, as long as it is in a way in which you approve? Authoritarianism FTW!

[Forty Two]

Back under your rock.

You really don't get it, do you? Things that the rest of the educated world consider common knowledge, you apparently have never heard. It's either a case of massive naivety and insularity (i.e. as what would come from one who spent their life living under a rock), or you are simply trolling. Either way, it's not good for you.

We can talk about whatever it is you want to talk about. But your penchant to speak in generalities and present zero evidence or examples is not something I can bother with. If you have an event or example you want to talk about, then post it. Otherwise, you're just using your usual shell game, where you make a blanket, vague statement and offer nothing in support but ridicule.

[pErvinalia]

The problem is when evidence is presented, you just hand wave it away, or outright interpret it in a way that has the rest of us shaking our heads. It's pointless with you.

[Forty Two]

Burning a sign with two words on it is hardly a noteworthy suppression of free speech.

LOL, it's not itself a suppression of free speech. It's an expression of opposition to free speech. He's saying what's on his mind. Christ, dude....

So what's the problem then? Does the guy burning the sign claim he has a right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants?

Yes, he does have that right, and pointing out that he is expressing a view against free speech by exercising his free speech to burn a placard which states "freedom of speech" on it, as if he wishes to immolate the right of free speech, doesn't take away that right. Nor does it take away his right, to point out that his view appears to be very totalitarian or authoritarian in nature, implying that he has a right to publicly set fire to things to send a message, while at the same time opposing the right of individuals to say what they want.

The guy burning the sign appears to claim he has the right to burn the sign. I have no idea if he claims to have the right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants. He seems to believe he has the right to express his viewpoint, and he hasn't asked anybody for permission, has he? Doesn't freedom of speech mean we each have that same right?

You haven't explained what exactly the problem is here. What is your specific problem with this guy burning the sign?

Regarding your last paragraph, all freedoms have some limitations. You can't express all viewpoints freely under the law (like shouting "bomb" on a plane).

I've explained this in terms a 5 year old would understand.

But, let me try again. I have no problem with him burning the sign, in the sense that I support his, and everyone else's, right to freedom of speech. My problem is with his message -- he appears to be against freedom of speech. That's fairly common among the left these days, where they say dumb-ass things like "hate speech is not free speech" and they think that supporting Trump is hate speech - that kind of thing.

Indeed, as to your last line, and can you articulate why your example of shouting "bomb" on a plane is different than a content based restriction on freedom of expression?

Also, do you think it's likely that the guy burning the sign is fighting the good fight against the forces of those shouting "bomb!" on planes? Is that the kind of speech you think he wants to be "not free?"

[Forty Two]

The problem is when evidence is presented, you just hand wave it away, or outright interpret it in a way that has the rest of us shaking our heads. It's pointless with you.

No, the problem is you don't present evidence.

Fuck off with this "rest of us" bullshit. You're not any more among the majority "we" here than I am. Your views are often idiotic, and largely uninformed. And, "we" all know that.

[pErvinalia]

LOL, it's not itself a suppression of free speech. It's an expression of opposition to free speech. He's saying what's on his mind. Christ, dude....

So what's the problem then? Does the guy burning the sign claim he has a right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants?

Yes, he does have that right, and pointing out that he is expressing a view against free speech by exercising his free speech to burn a placard which states "freedom of speech" on it, as if he wishes to immolate the right of free speech, doesn't take away that right. Nor does it take away his right, to point out that his view appears to be very totalitarian or authoritarian in nature, implying that he has a right to publicly set fire to things to send a message, while at the same time opposing the right of individuals to say what they want.

The guy burning the sign appears to claim he has the right to burn the sign. I have no idea if he claims to have the right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants. He seems to believe he has the right to express his viewpoint, and he hasn't asked anybody for permission, has he? Doesn't freedom of speech mean we each have that same right?

You haven't explained what exactly the problem is here. What is your specific problem with this guy burning the sign?

Regarding your last paragraph, all freedoms have some limitations. You can't express all viewpoints freely under the law (like shouting "bomb" on a plane).

I've explained this in terms a 5 year old would understand.

But, let me try again. I have no problem with him burning the sign, in the sense that I support his, and everyone else's, right to freedom of speech. My problem is with his message -- he appears to be against freedom of speech.

You have no idea what his views are from one single picture. As I said, it seems a perfectly reasonable point to make that the bigot who made the sign is a rank hypocrite.

He may well be against "free speech", but burning a sign doesn't show it. If he burned the flag would he be against free speech?

Indeed, as to your last line, and can you articulate why your example of shouting "bomb" on a plane is different than a content based restriction on freedom of expression?

Is the word "bomb" not content?

Also, do you think it's likely that the guy burning the sign is fighting the good fight against the forces of those shouting "bomb!" on planes?

I think it's probably likely, as I've stated a few times, that he thinks the person who brought that sign to the protest doesn't give a shit about free speech. I don't think he's fighting against those shouting "bomb" on planes. Whatever that is supposed to mean..

[Woodbutcher]

In any of these protests you get people who believe in the right of people to protest against what they believe to be wrongs. You also get fucking hooligans who are there to seek attention and cause as much damage under the guise of protesting, it just gives them a stage to perform in. In Canada we get fucking hockey riots where gangs of criminals come to break things and steal and burn. The worst troublemakers care nothing for the reason for the protest, they are there to perform and, hopefully, to loot. They are going to a protest for personal gain, they'll be at a republican protest, democrat, leftist and islamic protest with their faces covered. They should be shot on sight, or at least trashed by the legitimate protesters. If I organized a protest, I'd have my own security there with 24"X1" galvanized pipe nipples at hand to keep order.

So a right to protest, as long as it is in a way in which you approve? Authoritarianism FTW!

You bet, comrade! No looting from shops, no destruction of property of innocent bystanders. The people who are being protested against couldn't care less when they are not affected, it just gives them a chance to point their fingers at ALL the protesters as being hooligans and illegitimate. Now, firebombing these leaders' homes, assassinating them and their family members, and bombing and burning their factories and business outlets might be a more acceptable and noteworthy form of protest. Why waste your time and energy on protests that achieve nothing, when you can really fuck things up by surgical insurrection!

[pErvinalia]

The problem is when evidence is presented, you just hand wave it away, or outright interpret it in a way that has the rest of us shaking our heads. It's pointless with you.

No, the problem is you don't present evidence any more.

Fuck off with this "rest of us" bullshit. You're not any more among the majority "we" here than I am.

You really have no idea what's going on.