If you're so happy about people resorting to violence, then I do invite you to go out and assault these people. Show how you're the better person and all.
Milo "inciting violence" is just like people saying "punch a Nazi", or idiots who pepper spray/assault someone for wearing a MAGA hat. Just because I think someone is an idiot it doesn't mean I have the right to physically harm them.
If you're so happy about people resorting to violence, then I do invite you to go out and assault these people. Show how you're the better person and all.
Milo "inciting violence" is just like people saying "punch a Nazi", or idiots who pepper spray/assault someone for wearing a MAGA hat. Just because I think someone is an idiot it doesn't mean I have the right to physically harm them.
That is the point of the protests. People don't have the right to physically harm and harass people. This includes organizing efforts to accomplish the same goal.
Incredibly so. I've seen a lot of people try to resolve their diffences with violence, and pre-emptive violence (the joys of growing up in the 'most alcohol consumed' part of a 'most alcohol consumed' country), and any analogy or simily along those lines is a load of absolute goose shit.
That's not a comment on any movement or political stance, but that line of comparison is real dumb.
Incredibly so. I've seen a lot of people try to resolve their diffences with violence, and pre-emptive violence (the joys of growing up in the 'most alcohol consumed' part of a 'most alcohol consumed' country), and any analogy or simily along those lines is a load of absolute goose shit.
That's not a comment on any movement or political stance, but that line of comparison is real dumb.
You just agreed with me that trying to resolve differences with violence is incredibly stupid.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If you're so happy about people resorting to violence, then I do invite you to go out and assault these people. Show how you're the better person and all.
Milo "inciting violence" is just like people saying "punch a Nazi", or idiots who pepper spray/assault someone for wearing a MAGA hat. Just because I think someone is an idiot it doesn't mean I have the right to physically harm them.
First off, people aren't happy that these people are resorting to violence. Far from it. At the same time, we understand why they are doing so, given the feelings of disenfranchisement and being ignored. There's a reason that MLK said that "a riot is the language of the unheard".
Second, it's easy for those of us who aren't the ones being targeted for violence and attacked over intrinsic aspects of identity to dismiss the damage that people like Milo do. But for disprivileged groups, having someone foment hate and target people within your group directly affects your safety and security. There's a reason they see this as an act of violence against them.
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
"If someone is planning to dox your fellow students and mark them for death and rape threats and possible deportation, just use your political connections with local officials to do something about it" is perhaps a bit out of touch.
"If someone is planning to dox your fellow students and mark them for death and rape threats and possible deportation, just use your political connections with local officials to do something about it" is perhaps a bit out of touch.
Especially considering we had a several page discussion already about whether or not Milo's speech is actually violating any laws, regardless of the universal acknowledgement that he's certainly violating the spirit of laws even if the actual laws themselves aren't up to snuff.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
+3
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
It's a false equivalence to suggest that tactics are right or wrong irrespective of the issue at hand.
Targeting innocent people is not the same thing as targeting admitted advocates of ethnic cleansing, for starters, so I will continue to advocate for the students harmed by people like Milo while continuing to not shed a single tear for Richard Spencer.
If a crowd of people formed a protest to stop the Dalai Lama from speaking, clashed with police, and damaged property, I'd feel comfortable calling that 'wrong'. A crowd of people doing the same to stop Milo is 'right', and the argument instead is 'could this have been done better' or 'how can we stop Milo more efficiently in the future'.
Context is important. The reason behind actions matters regarding how those actions are judged.
People attacking anyone, because of their race, nationality or beliefs, is completely wrong. Doxxing someone for being a white nationalist (If they haven't done anything illegal) is just as bad as doxxing someone who is advocating for Sharia Law (who hasn't done anything illegal).
"If someone is planning to dox your fellow students and mark them for death and rape threats and possible deportation, just use your political connections with local officials to do something about it" is perhaps a bit out of touch.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. Do you suggest doing both violence and correspondence with the administration at the same time? Do you want to abandon attempts to use a system everyone signed off on to prevent something bad from happening?
Seems to me like different people can have different roles, and people should assume the role that's the best fit for the power they actually have. Some of these roles are less disruptive and more deliberate than others. Do you think they are inferior just because they don't make the front page or stir up emotions? Think about the big picture.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Context is important. The reason behind actions matters regarding how those actions are judged.
People attacking anyone, because of their race, nationality or beliefs, is completely wrong. Doxxing someone for being a white nationalist (If they haven't done anything illegal) is just as bad as doxxing someone who is advocating for Sharia Law (who hasn't done anything illegal).
Yes. Attempting to stop racial and religious supremacists would be morally equivalent. This is not even a little related to your other point though since no one in the protest is attempting to advocate for racial or religious supremacy.
Context is important. The reason behind actions matters regarding how those actions are judged.
People attacking anyone, because of their race, nationality or beliefs, is completely wrong. Doxxing someone for being a white nationalist (If they haven't done anything illegal) is just as bad as doxxing someone who is advocating for Sharia Law (who hasn't done anything illegal).
Nah. I don't advocate those things in most cases but they aren't equally bad in all situations ever.
This is also why analogies are bad in debate. You should argue why you think X action is bad in this instance. Otherwise things just get derailed by arguing over the differences between situations.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
Edit: I should elaborate some. You are continuing to dance around the ever present reality that not all people are equally valued by society. It would be great if they did, but they aren't. There is also not a large group of supporters out there willing to go to bat for the civil rights of others. A university of that routinely has to reject thousands of applicants is not going to worry about losing hundreds of people paying tuition. The math just doesn't work out. Businesses (and that is how education is run now make no mistake) only respond to pressure when it actually affects their bottom line. Using your social clout just does not work for every person. The legal system is an unreliable ally in this at best as well, especially for those who can be deported at a whim.
You make a lot of grand assumptions that all pivot over one flawed idea. The idea that we are all treated equally by those in power. Were that true I would agree with you completely. It isn't true though, and it never will be. There isn't going to be a huge groundswell of support to help undocumented immigrants who are simply trying to attend class. There wasn't any systemic support for a trans student who was bullied off campus and did utilize many of those avenues you suggest. Life just isn't fair, and we have to work around that.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
Seriously go read up on the case up at University of Washington I think it was. Where the trans student had to sue to get equal protection. Milo then comes over the load concerns and complaints of those he would inevitably target. Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target. This did jack squat because the administration doesn't give a shit about her. She got chased off campus and the response was a mass letter saying they are working on stuff. They did nothing to work with her though. This has all been posted here as well if you want to save yourself some googleing (google-ing? googling? doing the google?).
Context is important. The reason behind actions matters regarding how those actions are judged.
People attacking anyone, because of their race, nationality or beliefs, is completely wrong. Doxxing someone for being a white nationalist (If they haven't done anything illegal) is just as bad as doxxing someone who is advocating for Sharia Law (who hasn't done anything illegal).
Nah
Beliefs are not sacrosanct merely because they are believed.
If You're a fuckin Nazi, and your end goal is the death of all non Aryans, then you can get totally fucked.
Going full "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", besides being vastly unimpressive from the Internet, can get people in very hot water so I would suggest to change the topic from it.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
If the law fails to protect people, they're going to take steps to protect themselves, violently if need be. Instead of finger wagging and telling them to accept their victimization, you'd be better off spending your energies helping them fix the laws.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
You're the one claiming it happens. So you feel free to document it. It's not reasonable to hold everyone else to a separate standard of evidence while you make undocumented claims.
Quid on
+8
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You're basically blaming other people that you missed about 20% of the thread, so they must be wrong.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
You're the one claiming it happens. So you feel free to document it. It's not reasonable to everyone else to a separate standard of evidence while you make undocumented claims.
Claiming what happens? That students have ever changed or countered school policy? That's fair.
Lawsuits against the school sometimes work. My example is bad, but I think it works.
Written petitions with an argument citing school code has worked. I'm taking the first google result; unfortunately there seems to be a trend.
Let me know if you need more evidence.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If the law fails to protect people, they're going to take steps to protect themselves, violently if need be. Instead of finger wagging and telling them to accept their victimization, you'd be better off spending your energies helping them fix the laws.
I am. I've been looking up the relevant sections of school charter and giving you the results. I've also done so for several students in my vicinity.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
You're the one claiming it happens. So you feel free to document it. It's not reasonable to everyone else to a separate standard of evidence while you make undocumented claims.
Claiming what happens? That students have ever changed or countered school policy? That's fair.
Lawsuits against the school sometimes work. My example is bad, but I think it works.
Written petitions with an argument citing school code has worked. I'm taking the first google result; unfortunately there seems to be a trend.
Let me know if you need more evidence.
If I get a moment I will try to sift through some stuff for you. That said you could easily beat me to this because the information is literally contained in this thread.
Going full "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", besides being vastly unimpressive from the Internet, can get people in very hot water so I would suggest to change the topic from it.
I don't think anyone is advocating that. I am fighting back against the idea that somehow these protesters felt the need to become violent for no reason at all, and that nothing could have possibly provoked this reaction. I am generally against violence, but it is intellectually dishonest at best to frame this discussion as one side trying to peacefully exercise their right to free speech while the other side is just a bunch of violent assholes who hate the first amendment. I think that is generally where everyone else is that is arguing on behalf of the protesters as well.
+4
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
You're the one claiming it happens. So you feel free to document it. It's not reasonable to everyone else to a separate standard of evidence while you make undocumented claims.
Claiming what happens? That students have ever changed or countered school policy? That's fair.
Lawsuits against the school sometimes work. My example is bad, but I think it works.
Written petitions with an argument citing school code has worked. I'm taking the first google result; unfortunately there seems to be a trend.
Let me know if you need more evidence.
I'd love some more evidence; the examples you cite all involve very privileged parties (males accused of rape, white libertarians), involved in sustained campaigns over months (not counting time taken for YAL to win seats on the student council), involving fairly non-controversial issues (students should be entitled to due process, students should be allowed to carry pepper spray), and perhaps most importantly, without the existence of a persistent political adversary external to the school ecosystem.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
You're the one claiming it happens. So you feel free to document it. It's not reasonable to everyone else to a separate standard of evidence while you make undocumented claims.
Claiming what happens? That students have ever changed or countered school policy? That's fair.
Lawsuits against the school sometimes work. My example is bad, but I think it works.
Written petitions with an argument citing school code has worked. I'm taking the first google result; unfortunately there seems to be a trend.
Let me know if you need more evidence.
I'd love some more evidence; the examples you cite all involve very privileged parties (males accused of rape, white libertarians), involved in sustained campaigns over months (not counting time taken for YAL to win seats on the student council), involving fairly non-controversial issues (students should be entitled to due process, students should be allowed to carry pepper spray), and perhaps most importantly, without the existence of a persistent political adversary external to the school ecosystem.
Yeah, I'll look for more. In the meantime, the discussion about the steps taken by the UW student prior to the speaking incident was only described in detail in this thread by the victim's letter. I skimmed the thread and could not find discussion that provided further details on the nature of this correspondence, like how many students were involved and how far legal language went into it.
However, considering the evidence, prior to further discussion, my position has evolved: in those cases of incompetent administration, legal escalation is necessary. I cannot blame this individual for ceasing to choose this route (the title IX appeal,which has traction but is now under threat, and by the way is a systemic example of significant change for underprivileged students), since this is awfully hard, to say the least.
I do ask that we start to take the next steps beyond protest to enact skillful progress and not cut our capabilities short by marring our records with violent crime. I can't do much from behind bars.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
You're the one claiming it happens. So you feel free to document it. It's not reasonable to everyone else to a separate standard of evidence while you make undocumented claims.
Claiming what happens? That students have ever changed or countered school policy? That's fair.
Lawsuits against the school sometimes work. My example is bad, but I think it works.
Written petitions with an argument citing school code has worked. I'm taking the first google result; unfortunately there seems to be a trend.
Let me know if you need more evidence.
If I get a moment I will try to sift through some stuff for you. That said you could easily beat me to this because the information is literally contained in this thread.
Going full "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", besides being vastly unimpressive from the Internet, can get people in very hot water so I would suggest to change the topic from it.
I don't think anyone is advocating that. I am fighting back against the idea that somehow these protesters felt the need to become violent for no reason at all, and that nothing could have possibly provoked this reaction. I am generally against violence, but it is intellectually dishonest at best to frame this discussion as one side trying to peacefully exercise their right to free speech while the other side is just a bunch of violent assholes who hate the first amendment. I think that is generally where everyone else is that is arguing on behalf of the protesters as well.
Actual organized activism doesn't go around taking pics of themselves doing vandalism and then post it all around social media. Taking aside the moral and legal connotations, the fact is that the only thing that UC Berkley protesters got is that an employee of the college put pics of himself getting down and dirty and the right wing media sphere nailed him and is now under an FBI investigation. Yeah, "but they were provoked", but a movement that lets itself being provoked into losing the moral high ground to the likes of Yiannopolos just isn't effective. Just like the MSM wasn't and isn't effective in fighting against Trump because he easily leads them like a cat behind the car keys. And part of doing the hard work of political activism that actually gets results (because that's what is important, to get results that improve people's lives) is having, as a minimal, the discipline of not doing idiotic stuff for likes on social media.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
You're the one claiming it happens. So you feel free to document it. It's not reasonable to everyone else to a separate standard of evidence while you make undocumented claims.
Claiming what happens? That students have ever changed or countered school policy? That's fair.
Lawsuits against the school sometimes work. My example is bad, but I think it works.
Written petitions with an argument citing school code has worked. I'm taking the first google result; unfortunately there seems to be a trend.
Let me know if you need more evidence.
If I get a moment I will try to sift through some stuff for you. That said you could easily beat me to this because the information is literally contained in this thread.
Going full "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", besides being vastly unimpressive from the Internet, can get people in very hot water so I would suggest to change the topic from it.
I don't think anyone is advocating that. I am fighting back against the idea that somehow these protesters felt the need to become violent for no reason at all, and that nothing could have possibly provoked this reaction. I am generally against violence, but it is intellectually dishonest at best to frame this discussion as one side trying to peacefully exercise their right to free speech while the other side is just a bunch of violent assholes who hate the first amendment. I think that is generally where everyone else is that is arguing on behalf of the protesters as well.
Actual organized activism doesn't go around taking pics of themselves doing vandalism and then post it all around social media. Taking aside the moral and legal connotations, the fact is that the only thing that UC Berkley protesters got is that an employee of the college put pics of himself getting down and dirty and the right wing media sphere nailed him and is now under an FBI investigation. Yeah, "but they were provoked", but a movement that lets itself being provoked into losing the moral high ground to the likes of Yiannopolos just isn't effective. Just like the MSM wasn't and isn't effective in fighting against Trump because he easily leads them like a cat behind the car keys. And part of doing the hard work of political activism that actually gets results (because that's what is important, to get results that improve people's lives) is having, as a minimal, the discipline of not doing idiotic stuff for likes on social media.
There has never been a giant systemic shift in power without accompanying violence. Humans, as a species, just haven't worked out how to manage this ideal. I would love for this to be the first time that wasn't true, but we can't pretend it would be normal. The violence does not weaken anything long term, and short term it stopped Milo from very likely getting several students mobbed. It also caused several others to be hurt. This is not a loss on any front in any real sense.
No, because the university is a platform and speech on your platform is also your speech. This is true regardless of the owner of the platform.
The Government cannot restrict your speech but it is not required to support it. The government can advertise for programs it wants to promote without being forced to advertise for the KKK.
Such, filtering for content does not restrict the speech of student groups. It expresses the speech of the university.
And, far from your other example providing a supporting case, in fact trying to exercise viewpoint discrimination when selling advertising on e.g. subways is indeed an area where the government has gotten into first amendment trouble
Before the bills went up, the MTA board then voted to change its policy and banned controversial political ads altogether — a move Geller's team argued was done in bad faith.
Koetl disagreed.
"No law requires public transit agencies to accept political advertisements as a matter of course, and it is not for this Court to impose its own views on what type of forum the MTA should create," Koetl wrote.
Again, if Berkeley wants to dumbly declare that they're banning Milo because of his politics, then yeah, obvious First Amendment issue. But if that's all they can come up with, they're not trying very hard. (Which they might very much not be.)
Yes; if Berkeley generally prohibited student groups from inviting any political figures whatsoever that would have a chance of withstanding scrutiny.
I doubt anyone is very interested in that eventuality, though. Inviting political speakers is campus groups' raison d'etre.
So, I should say that first off, I'm not a First Amendment fetishist, for better or for worse. I believe that it's neither the pointy speartip nor the resilient bulwark for American freedom and justice and democracy. Laws are only as effective as those who interpret and enforce them want them to be, and the practical right to freedom of speech, in general, has reflected society's perceptions of freedom of speech as they've changed over time. I note, for example, that freedom of speech and slavery co-existed for a time in the United States; freedom of speech did not apply to black people, because black people weren't "people," and in fact trying to teach slaves literacy was itself illegal. You mentioned LGBT groups; where was the First Amendment for LGBT people for the first, let's say, 150-200 years of the Union? Did the First Amendment protect them from persecution and prosecution under obscenity laws?
The US government, and other governments as well, have long since found ways to curtail freedom of speech as per their prerogative. They might, for example, look at a group of student protesters sitting on the UC Davis campus and pepper spray them in the face. Or shunt protesters off into designated protest zones, as well as assaulting and arresting those who refuse. The citations are never for the speech itself, but rather other tacked-on charges, like disruption of commercial activity. And frankly, to some extent, free speech has often been denied to those without the means to see through a Supreme Court challenge against the actions taken to oppress them.
I'm not opposed to the First Amendment in particular, but I do recognize that various authorities have worked around the First Amendment in a variety of ways in the past and continue to do so, and I see no reason why UC Berkeley could not do the same if they so chose. You might say that this undermines the spirit of the First Amendment, but ... well, frankly, as I said, the spirit of the First Amendment isn't particularly especially robust anyways and I don't think that UC Berkeley's going to be the institution that starts the US on its slippery slope into tyranny. (Hell, the newly-elected US President who rants and raves against the mainstream media might perhaps be the more looming threat.)
The way I understand it, Milo does not have free speech rights pursuant to his being able to give a talk at Berkeley. In particular, unless someone is invited to campus by a campus group, they have no right to just waltz up and deliver a talk. That is to say, if UC Berkeley were to block Milo from delivering a talk, as a private citizen unaffiliated with UC Berkeley, it would not be his First Amendment rights that are denied, but rather the First Amendment rights of the campus group that invited him. But I will note that campus groups not only have no inherent right to invite speakers to give talks, they don't even have an inherent right to existence; as you comment, a university could just ban all campus groups, and this would not be an infringement of First Amendment rights. What UC Berkeley cannot do is discriminate between campus groups based on their political leanings; while they could ban all campus groups from inviting speakers, or even existing (at least, in certain formalized organizations recognized by the university as having certain privileges; banning any association of students entirely would be unconstitutional), choosing to disallow one group certain privileges based on their political beliefs, as expressed by the speaker they've invited to come to campus, would where the violation of their rights occurs.
This seems to be all the wiggle room one would need to block Milo from speaking on campus. There are absolutely practical issues with pre-clearance - one cannot ban Milo from campus for violations against campus codes of conduct he has yet to commit on campus - but it would be far from unjust for a university to expect guests to abide by the same codes of conduct as its employees and students do. If a university firing an employee or expelling a student for certain conduct isn't a violation of the First Amendment, how is declaring a visitor non grata for the same conduct a First Amendment violation, at least in principle if not in law? Or say that you can't sufficiently guarantee safety for such an event, either beforehand or during the protests as they crop up - something which has occurred before and caused certain talks to be cancelled, such as with Sarkeesian's Utah State talk or Coulter's UOttawa talk. Pass on the security costs to the campus group that invited Milo in the first place, as part of the relevant costs campus groups are obligated to pay for organized events as per UC Berkeley policies (though Paladin remarked that Berkeley has been moving on to eliminating all security costs for all campus groups). Or if current policies do not suffice, as the Chancellor notes, "Longstanding campus policy permits registered student organizations to invite speakers to campus and to make free use of meeting space in the Student Union for that purpose," there's an obvious opening involving changing campus policy as it applies to all registered student organizations.
Violence is an unskilled display of power. If you know the law and you have some value within the system, you are closer to the decision makers that react to the conflict on the ground than someone who only understands the issue on a very superficial level. You don't need violence because you've got better tools.
Then, embracing or repudiating anything that happens, including the violence, is simply a calculated behavior you show to others to get the change you want.
Hippofant and I have armed ourselves with a case study of relevant aspects of the school policy and state law, and are therefore prepared to take several options should a similar issue happen where we are in the future. I have my own opinions about violent protest, but I am currently way past that in the construction of my decision making paradigm about this issue. You kind of have to move past the violence issue to stay in the game, because looking at the news, that's what everyone else is doing.
The bolded aspect is where you are losing people. A lot of his victims do not have any value in the system at large. That is kind of the problem.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Literally she helped organize a campaign to stop him and inform the administration about how terrible he was before she even knew she would be the target.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
You're the one claiming it happens. So you feel free to document it. It's not reasonable to everyone else to a separate standard of evidence while you make undocumented claims.
Claiming what happens? That students have ever changed or countered school policy? That's fair.
Lawsuits against the school sometimes work. My example is bad, but I think it works.
Written petitions with an argument citing school code has worked. I'm taking the first google result; unfortunately there seems to be a trend.
Let me know if you need more evidence.
I'd love some more evidence; the examples you cite all involve very privileged parties (males accused of rape, white libertarians), involved in sustained campaigns over months (not counting time taken for YAL to win seats on the student council), involving fairly non-controversial issues (students should be entitled to due process, students should be allowed to carry pepper spray), and perhaps most importantly, without the existence of a persistent political adversary external to the school ecosystem.
Yeah, I'll look for more. In the meantime, the discussion about the steps taken by the UW student prior to the speaking incident was only described in detail in this thread by the victim's letter. I skimmed the thread and could not find discussion that provided further details on the nature of this correspondence, like how many students were involved and how far legal language went into it.
However, considering the evidence, prior to further discussion, my position has evolved: in those cases of incompetent administration, legal escalation is necessary. I cannot blame this individual for ceasing to choose this route (the title IX appeal,which has traction but is now under threat, and by the way is a systemic example of significant change for underprivileged students), since this is awfully hard, to say the least.
I do ask that we start to take the next steps beyond protest to enact skillful progress and not cut our capabilities short by marring our records with violent crime. I can't do much from behind bars.
Some of the disconnect seems to be not what the protesters should have done but how the rest of us should react. Supposing for a moment that everyone is agreed that violence is absolutely wrong/not a good way forward (probably not the case for all but lets assume), there is still the question on how to frame the conversation that follows.
I think many would argue that the violence is a symptom and to concentrate on only that part leads to obfuscation of the larger problems. When you ignore the underlying issues driving someone to bad behavior, it simply reinforces the belief that you don't care about them. You're approaching a situation that has a lifetime of bad outcomes for one person versus one decision by that person that lead to a bad outcome and saying the single instance is the only thing that matters and all else can be ignored infavor of punishing the bad behavior.
I struggle with how to reconcile this, because I don't think we should ever appear to give the notion that the violence is ok or reinforce that it can potentially create good results, but at the same time I think it's naive to approach the situation as if you could solve it by only focusing on the last act without addressing everything that lead to that point.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
As the twitter handle indicates, this is a Republican group (establishment wing). Some group of people is attempting to hack their twitter as we speak.
Posts
Milo "inciting violence" is just like people saying "punch a Nazi", or idiots who pepper spray/assault someone for wearing a MAGA hat. Just because I think someone is an idiot it doesn't mean I have the right to physically harm them.
That is the point of the protests. People don't have the right to physically harm and harass people. This includes organizing efforts to accomplish the same goal.
Incredibly so. I've seen a lot of people try to resolve their diffences with violence, and pre-emptive violence (the joys of growing up in the 'most alcohol consumed' part of a 'most alcohol consumed' country), and any analogy or simily along those lines is a load of absolute goose shit.
That's not a comment on any movement or political stance, but that line of comparison is real dumb.
You just agreed with me that trying to resolve differences with violence is incredibly stupid.
In this setting, the affected do have value. They're university students. Heck, they get their own articles when they get banned from entering the country. Think of what kind of things can be done by students actually legislating school policy. Violence is a step down for them.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
First off, people aren't happy that these people are resorting to violence. Far from it. At the same time, we understand why they are doing so, given the feelings of disenfranchisement and being ignored. There's a reason that MLK said that "a riot is the language of the unheard".
Second, it's easy for those of us who aren't the ones being targeted for violence and attacked over intrinsic aspects of identity to dismiss the damage that people like Milo do. But for disprivileged groups, having someone foment hate and target people within your group directly affects your safety and security. There's a reason they see this as an act of violence against them.
Especially considering we had a several page discussion already about whether or not Milo's speech is actually violating any laws, regardless of the universal acknowledgement that he's certainly violating the spirit of laws even if the actual laws themselves aren't up to snuff.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Context is important. The reason behind actions matters regarding how those actions are judged.
No, they might not. Milo himself provided us with an example of where that clearly was not true. The university gave shitty lip service to the victim through some public pronouncements, and otherwise did jack shit. The assumption that a person is valued by those in power is not one that can be universally made. Milo's targets specifically have little if any influence due to lacking in both numbers, and sociopolitical power.
It's a false equivalence to suggest that tactics are right or wrong irrespective of the issue at hand.
Targeting innocent people is not the same thing as targeting admitted advocates of ethnic cleansing, for starters, so I will continue to advocate for the students harmed by people like Milo while continuing to not shed a single tear for Richard Spencer.
If a crowd of people formed a protest to stop the Dalai Lama from speaking, clashed with police, and damaged property, I'd feel comfortable calling that 'wrong'. A crowd of people doing the same to stop Milo is 'right', and the argument instead is 'could this have been done better' or 'how can we stop Milo more efficiently in the future'.
People attacking anyone, because of their race, nationality or beliefs, is completely wrong. Doxxing someone for being a white nationalist (If they haven't done anything illegal) is just as bad as doxxing someone who is advocating for Sharia Law (who hasn't done anything illegal).
I don't understand this line of reasoning. Do you suggest doing both violence and correspondence with the administration at the same time? Do you want to abandon attempts to use a system everyone signed off on to prevent something bad from happening?
Seems to me like different people can have different roles, and people should assume the role that's the best fit for the power they actually have. Some of these roles are less disruptive and more deliberate than others. Do you think they are inferior just because they don't make the front page or stir up emotions? Think about the big picture.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yes. Attempting to stop racial and religious supremacists would be morally equivalent. This is not even a little related to your other point though since no one in the protest is attempting to advocate for racial or religious supremacy.
Nah. I don't advocate those things in most cases but they aren't equally bad in all situations ever.
This is also why analogies are bad in debate. You should argue why you think X action is bad in this instance. Otherwise things just get derailed by arguing over the differences between situations.
Students are often ignorant of the power they possess in a public university, which is all fine for an administration that would rather it was more like a grade school. It's not. Each student has several bargaining chips - tuition, feedback, conduct, public affairs, and legal disputes that come from such a heavy investment into career services rendered.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Surely that's not your opinion. The FBI doxxed these people, for instance.
This would be much more persuasive if we didn't have a shining example of all of that failing to sway an administration in this very thread.
Edit: I should elaborate some. You are continuing to dance around the ever present reality that not all people are equally valued by society. It would be great if they did, but they aren't. There is also not a large group of supporters out there willing to go to bat for the civil rights of others. A university of that routinely has to reject thousands of applicants is not going to worry about losing hundreds of people paying tuition. The math just doesn't work out. Businesses (and that is how education is run now make no mistake) only respond to pressure when it actually affects their bottom line. Using your social clout just does not work for every person. The legal system is an unreliable ally in this at best as well, especially for those who can be deported at a whim.
You make a lot of grand assumptions that all pivot over one flawed idea. The idea that we are all treated equally by those in power. Were that true I would agree with you completely. It isn't true though, and it never will be. There isn't going to be a huge groundswell of support to help undocumented immigrants who are simply trying to attend class. There wasn't any systemic support for a trans student who was bullied off campus and did utilize many of those avenues you suggest. Life just isn't fair, and we have to work around that.
We don't have that example. In fact, we usually don't, because these actions are usually behind the scenes and poorly publicized. Was there a discussion of the intricacies of University policy anywhere but in the Chancellor letter, and maybe this thread? How many people were backing up the protest with correspondence and rule setting? What is the policy of the student government run building where the speech was to be based, and what methods exist to change these policies? Protests aren't the only thing you can do. You can do other things. The school of Law is right there, the dean's office is right there. The school newspaper is right there.
I have been following the news regarding the protest and it is extremely hard to find any discussion of school policy. It's almost impossible to find it now. Maybe my Google fu is weak; show me that these higher actions have been taken.
Edit: my main point is that students that DO get in DO have power and a voice. They should use that power. University students are part of a system and can do more than something an outsider can also do.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't see how you can reconcile that we have no way of knowing if transgendered students are ignored because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes but you totally know they have a fairly heard voice.
Nah
Beliefs are not sacrosanct merely because they are believed.
If You're a fuckin Nazi, and your end goal is the death of all non Aryans, then you can get totally fucked.
It is on us to document these attempts because the argument was that they were made and don't matter. If you argue something has been done, you must show proof it has been done.
Gnizmo's going in the right direction. It's U Wisconsin. I would like to know more about her communication efforts.
Let me read more about this. If you could help find the data, I'd appreciate it.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You're the one claiming it happens. So you feel free to document it. It's not reasonable to hold everyone else to a separate standard of evidence while you make undocumented claims.
Claiming what happens? That students have ever changed or countered school policy? That's fair.
Lawsuits against the school sometimes work. My example is bad, but I think it works.
Written petitions with an argument citing school code has worked. I'm taking the first google result; unfortunately there seems to be a trend.
Let me know if you need more evidence.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I am. I've been looking up the relevant sections of school charter and giving you the results. I've also done so for several students in my vicinity.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If I get a moment I will try to sift through some stuff for you. That said you could easily beat me to this because the information is literally contained in this thread.
I don't think anyone is advocating that. I am fighting back against the idea that somehow these protesters felt the need to become violent for no reason at all, and that nothing could have possibly provoked this reaction. I am generally against violence, but it is intellectually dishonest at best to frame this discussion as one side trying to peacefully exercise their right to free speech while the other side is just a bunch of violent assholes who hate the first amendment. I think that is generally where everyone else is that is arguing on behalf of the protesters as well.
I'd love some more evidence; the examples you cite all involve very privileged parties (males accused of rape, white libertarians), involved in sustained campaigns over months (not counting time taken for YAL to win seats on the student council), involving fairly non-controversial issues (students should be entitled to due process, students should be allowed to carry pepper spray), and perhaps most importantly, without the existence of a persistent political adversary external to the school ecosystem.
Yeah, I'll look for more. In the meantime, the discussion about the steps taken by the UW student prior to the speaking incident was only described in detail in this thread by the victim's letter. I skimmed the thread and could not find discussion that provided further details on the nature of this correspondence, like how many students were involved and how far legal language went into it.
However, considering the evidence, prior to further discussion, my position has evolved: in those cases of incompetent administration, legal escalation is necessary. I cannot blame this individual for ceasing to choose this route (the title IX appeal,which has traction but is now under threat, and by the way is a systemic example of significant change for underprivileged students), since this is awfully hard, to say the least.
I do ask that we start to take the next steps beyond protest to enact skillful progress and not cut our capabilities short by marring our records with violent crime. I can't do much from behind bars.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Actual organized activism doesn't go around taking pics of themselves doing vandalism and then post it all around social media. Taking aside the moral and legal connotations, the fact is that the only thing that UC Berkley protesters got is that an employee of the college put pics of himself getting down and dirty and the right wing media sphere nailed him and is now under an FBI investigation. Yeah, "but they were provoked", but a movement that lets itself being provoked into losing the moral high ground to the likes of Yiannopolos just isn't effective. Just like the MSM wasn't and isn't effective in fighting against Trump because he easily leads them like a cat behind the car keys. And part of doing the hard work of political activism that actually gets results (because that's what is important, to get results that improve people's lives) is having, as a minimal, the discipline of not doing idiotic stuff for likes on social media.
Okay, so let's say the one side has pointy cars...
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
There has never been a giant systemic shift in power without accompanying violence. Humans, as a species, just haven't worked out how to manage this ideal. I would love for this to be the first time that wasn't true, but we can't pretend it would be normal. The violence does not weaken anything long term, and short term it stopped Milo from very likely getting several students mobbed. It also caused several others to be hurt. This is not a loss on any front in any real sense.
So, I should say that first off, I'm not a First Amendment fetishist, for better or for worse. I believe that it's neither the pointy speartip nor the resilient bulwark for American freedom and justice and democracy. Laws are only as effective as those who interpret and enforce them want them to be, and the practical right to freedom of speech, in general, has reflected society's perceptions of freedom of speech as they've changed over time. I note, for example, that freedom of speech and slavery co-existed for a time in the United States; freedom of speech did not apply to black people, because black people weren't "people," and in fact trying to teach slaves literacy was itself illegal. You mentioned LGBT groups; where was the First Amendment for LGBT people for the first, let's say, 150-200 years of the Union? Did the First Amendment protect them from persecution and prosecution under obscenity laws?
The US government, and other governments as well, have long since found ways to curtail freedom of speech as per their prerogative. They might, for example, look at a group of student protesters sitting on the UC Davis campus and pepper spray them in the face. Or shunt protesters off into designated protest zones, as well as assaulting and arresting those who refuse. The citations are never for the speech itself, but rather other tacked-on charges, like disruption of commercial activity. And frankly, to some extent, free speech has often been denied to those without the means to see through a Supreme Court challenge against the actions taken to oppress them.
I'm not opposed to the First Amendment in particular, but I do recognize that various authorities have worked around the First Amendment in a variety of ways in the past and continue to do so, and I see no reason why UC Berkeley could not do the same if they so chose. You might say that this undermines the spirit of the First Amendment, but ... well, frankly, as I said, the spirit of the First Amendment isn't particularly especially robust anyways and I don't think that UC Berkeley's going to be the institution that starts the US on its slippery slope into tyranny. (Hell, the newly-elected US President who rants and raves against the mainstream media might perhaps be the more looming threat.)
The way I understand it, Milo does not have free speech rights pursuant to his being able to give a talk at Berkeley. In particular, unless someone is invited to campus by a campus group, they have no right to just waltz up and deliver a talk. That is to say, if UC Berkeley were to block Milo from delivering a talk, as a private citizen unaffiliated with UC Berkeley, it would not be his First Amendment rights that are denied, but rather the First Amendment rights of the campus group that invited him. But I will note that campus groups not only have no inherent right to invite speakers to give talks, they don't even have an inherent right to existence; as you comment, a university could just ban all campus groups, and this would not be an infringement of First Amendment rights. What UC Berkeley cannot do is discriminate between campus groups based on their political leanings; while they could ban all campus groups from inviting speakers, or even existing (at least, in certain formalized organizations recognized by the university as having certain privileges; banning any association of students entirely would be unconstitutional), choosing to disallow one group certain privileges based on their political beliefs, as expressed by the speaker they've invited to come to campus, would where the violation of their rights occurs.
This seems to be all the wiggle room one would need to block Milo from speaking on campus. There are absolutely practical issues with pre-clearance - one cannot ban Milo from campus for violations against campus codes of conduct he has yet to commit on campus - but it would be far from unjust for a university to expect guests to abide by the same codes of conduct as its employees and students do. If a university firing an employee or expelling a student for certain conduct isn't a violation of the First Amendment, how is declaring a visitor non grata for the same conduct a First Amendment violation, at least in principle if not in law? Or say that you can't sufficiently guarantee safety for such an event, either beforehand or during the protests as they crop up - something which has occurred before and caused certain talks to be cancelled, such as with Sarkeesian's Utah State talk or Coulter's UOttawa talk. Pass on the security costs to the campus group that invited Milo in the first place, as part of the relevant costs campus groups are obligated to pay for organized events as per UC Berkeley policies (though Paladin remarked that Berkeley has been moving on to eliminating all security costs for all campus groups). Or if current policies do not suffice, as the Chancellor notes, "Longstanding campus policy permits registered student organizations to invite speakers to campus and to make free use of meeting space in the Student Union for that purpose," there's an obvious opening involving changing campus policy as it applies to all registered student organizations.
So in conclusion, I would still maintain that banning someone from a public university campus, or at least the institutionally regulated facilities on said campus, is not an infringement of their First Amendment rights, unless one loudly declares that said ban is for their political opinions (or other protected First Amendment behaviour). As points of evidence, I note, for example, that Rutger's is a public university with a policy on banning people from campus (http://studentconduct.rutgers.edu/disciplinary-processes/bans-from-campus/) or UW-Madison (http://uwpd.wisc.edu/crime-data/persons-banned-from-campus/) or Ohio State and Ohio University (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/18/colleges-rarely-publicize-names-of-those-banned-from-campus.html) or Southeatern Louisiana (https://www.southeastern.edu/resources/policies/assets/ban_trespass.pdf) or the University of Arizona (http://policy.arizona.edu/ethics-and-conduct/exclusionary-order) or Colorado State (http://policylibrary.colostate.edu/policy.aspx?id=562), etc, etc. If Berkeley has such a policy, they can review it to see they can stretch it to apply to Milo, or if not, they can otherwise write one such that it does, provided that they not do it in a stupidly obvious way, like including a provision that says, "No Milos allowed."
(Yes, this is rules-lawyering. But that's sort of the point of rules-lawyering: it cuts both ways.)
Some of the disconnect seems to be not what the protesters should have done but how the rest of us should react. Supposing for a moment that everyone is agreed that violence is absolutely wrong/not a good way forward (probably not the case for all but lets assume), there is still the question on how to frame the conversation that follows.
I think many would argue that the violence is a symptom and to concentrate on only that part leads to obfuscation of the larger problems. When you ignore the underlying issues driving someone to bad behavior, it simply reinforces the belief that you don't care about them. You're approaching a situation that has a lifetime of bad outcomes for one person versus one decision by that person that lead to a bad outcome and saying the single instance is the only thing that matters and all else can be ignored infavor of punishing the bad behavior.
I struggle with how to reconcile this, because I don't think we should ever appear to give the notion that the violence is ok or reinforce that it can potentially create good results, but at the same time I think it's naive to approach the situation as if you could solve it by only focusing on the last act without addressing everything that lead to that point.
As the twitter handle indicates, this is a Republican group (establishment wing). Some group of people is attempting to hack their twitter as we speak.