Plurality of tactics contributed to cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event

Last week’s events have been followed by a predictably vacuous and sensationalised deluge of comment from the mainstream media. The dominant focus of mainstream reportage has been the “violence” that supposedly characterised the evening, while many who identify as left themselves seem keen to distance themselves from said “violence” by employing the “outside agitators” trope. I hope to problematize these narratives while also arguing that the administration’s failure to deny the Berkeley College Republicans of its racist, xenophobic, sexist extravaganza — and the administration’s communications with the campus community — justify the outrage of many students and community members.

From the outset, those who opposed the platforming of Milo Yiannopoulos have been painted as repressive and anti-free speech by many media outlets, along with members of the campus community. A widely shared Daily Cal op-ed invoked the legacy of Berkeley’s Free Speech Movement to condemn those calling for the cancellation of Yiannopoulos’ event, emblematic of a carte-blanche attitude toward the honoring of free speech. The administration, demonstrated in emails from Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, failed to problematize a thoughtless adherence to the First Amendment and thus played straight into the hands of the likes of Yiannopoulos, who deliberately use such a basic interpretation of free speech to smokescreen their toxic, sexist, white nationalist agenda. Yiannopoulos and his supporters have a track record of actively targeting people in their hate speech, and the ideology they peddle perpetuates ideas that urgently endanger members of our community. In short: The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences. Dirks acknowledged the virulent nature of the language and ideas the speaker espoused and the ability for this to incite harm, but ultimately failed to take action.

Now, on to violence: the issue that has once again illuminated an internal divide on the left, allowing the media to portray the events as a spectacle of barbarity. Before taking on the core issue of whether violence is legitimate, the employment of the term “outside agitator” to distance UC Berkeley students from the “violence” of the protest must be grappled with. On a fundamental level, the distinction between the actions of students and “outsiders” is incongruous with the ethos of a public university and disrespectful to the wider community in which Berkeley is (and should be more) situated. It is patronising and privileged for UC Berkeley students to claim ownership over UC Berkeley and its affairs. We have no right to exclude others from this process. Poignantly — given that the locus of the resistance was the Martin Luther King Jr. building — King himself was a critic of this smear, arguing that we cannot “afford to live with the narrow, provincial ‘outside agitator’ idea,” adding that “anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.” King’s comments attest to the longevity of the term and also highlights the need for our movements to be inclusive of a plurality of experiences and tactics.

The community and media response to Wednesday evening also revealed our collective, dire lack of understanding of the anti-fascist movement, exemplified by Dirks’ description of members of black bloc as “Ninja-like.” Part of this knowledge vacuum is caused by anti-fascists’ principled stance against speaking to the media, which unfortunately does no favors for their public image. However, anti-fascism draws from a rich history of anarchist thought, which centers on an axis of anti-state and anti-racist commitments and has been practiced for about a century since getting its start in Europe in opposition to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler. We must do more to educate ourselves of this legacy, including the gains we have inherited from the courageous resistance of anti-fascists, and be cognizant that homogenizing portrayals that cast anti-fascists as haphazard provocateurs serve to divide our struggles.

The key question now remains: Was the “violence” Wednesday night justified? I am of the opinion that it was the plurality of tactics employed Wednesday evening that contributed to the success of the cancellation of the talk. I merely wish to offer some thoughts in hope of reframing the dominant narrative. I urge you to consider whether damaging the windows of places like banks and the Amazon student store constitutes “violence” — and, if so, what weight this “violence” carries in the context of the symbolic, structural and actual violence that is proposed, condoned and actioned by the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos and his supporters.

Read more opinion coverage on the use of violence in protests here.

Josh Hardman is a UC Berkeley student. Contact the opinion desk at [email protected] or follow us on Twitter @dailycalopinion.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • Monty Bank

    You are against free speech. It’s that simple. Most people can see that, too.

  • jerry

    Our principle of Free Speech was “extended to hate speech” a long, long time ago — in fact, when the First Amendment was crafted. No USA hate speech law would be Constitutional. We’ve been dealing with hate speech for hundreds of years by use of our own Free Speech. We have not needed governmental restrictions and things were a LOT worse in the past than now.

    The Constitutional way to deal with speech we don’t like is NOT to “stop” the speech; but to instead provide contrary speech. It’s not the speech we have to fear but the ideology behind the speech, and the ONLY way to deal with ideology is to provide convincing counter ideology.

    Successfully shutting them up simply reinforces their perspective and strengthens the very ideology you seek to defeat. So the tactic isn’t even pragmatically appropriate.

    But more important — embracing the tactic gives the same license to the “other” side which has the opposite ideological view from yours – and gives them the green light for the very same reasons to use tactics to shut you up when you try to speak.

    It’s a very flawed concept and as stated above, one we have done well without for hundreds of years.

  • speech that includes a “toxic, sexist, white nationalist agenda” is protected by the First Amendment… speech that condones shutting down such rhetoric, including the justification of violence, is also protected, but when you must resort to such extremes you’ve lost the argument…

  • Ed Oswalt

    “anti-fascists’ principled stance against speaking to the media” — principled, or helpful in avoiding getting identified after beating people in the head with sticks and damaging property.

  • Evan Smith

    This is exactly why Vladimir Lenin Called people like you “Useful Idiots.”

  • Just so you know, “Krystalnacht” literally means “night of broken glass”.

    In this conflict between Democrats and Republicans, it’s only Democrats who have developed an organized faction of irregular street combatants who run around in black shirts smashing things and beating suspected deviationist elements. You, progressives. You are the ones who teeter on the precipace of revanchist fascism.

    • Ipsophakto

      Black is the new brown….shirt

      • AnotherLover

        Man, that’s rich! Funny stuff.

  • SlayerofBodom

    Free speech DOES protect hate speech.

    In fact, that’s the type of speech this freedom was designed for. If speech didn’t offend anyone, no one would have to defend it.

    It’s the speech that does offend people, that they consider “hateful”, which the First Amendment was designed for.

    This simple bit of logic flies completely over the head of this Berkeley SJW.

  • Marc

    You lost me at the use of the word “problematize.”

    After watching the Berkeley “protest” videos on youtube of a girl pinned up against crowd barriers while being continually hammered in the back with what looked like an axe handle, I have to say this is a damned disgusting piece of writing boyo.

    These little skinny s***s in black need to be taught a lesson. “Black Block” whatever that means. They are nothing more than a bunch of little, violent bullies that like to show up to unarmed peaceful groups and start swinging baseball bats at people’s backs then run away.

    If that was my daughter in the video getting cheap shotted, I’d quietly spend a couple of weeks in Berkeley and find out who a couple of these little b*****s were. Then one fine evening we’d all happen to cross paths and they would learn what it feels like to be ambushed from behind. Taser followed by a piñata routine would deliver the lesson nicely I think.

    Community members need to stand up for their towns and not allow this kind of thuggery to run rampant in their streets. If the police aren’t going to do anything about it, you do what you have to to keep your family, friends and businesses safe.

    Once these types of groups are taught the hard way, that they can no longer act with impunity and that they will suffer real consequences for their brutality and mayhem; you’ll see them worm their way right back into the woodwork.

    You see Josh, violence is reciprocal. It’s not something you just write a paper or an article on. It’s a very real and brutal thing. Be very careful when you open that box.

    And were the guys in black waving flags? Did they actually…have flags… I mean it looked like they were waving flags… Flags…really?

    • FreedomFan

      If someone ever slapped Josh, he would wet himself.

      • AnotherLover

        Says it all. Well done!

  • Gunnar Thalweg

    Wow. Josh has no idea what he’s talking about. Be careful now. If your opponents take your advice, you might have a problem.

  • JC

    Write like you speak. Your words got in the way of what you’re trying to say. That was just painful to read.

    • Ron Jeffries

      He’s educated beyond his intelligence

  • 4TimesAYear

    Sorry, but the free speech you think you know so much about is actually meant to protect the speech of those you disagree with; speech you find offensive. Free speech means no matter how offensive it may be to you, the other person has a right to say it.
    Btw, the alleged “anti-fascists” who want to shut people up are the real fascists.

  • Jim Ardis

    Cal should be more inclusive of the wider community ofBerkeley so as not to appear privileged but only to those with whom we agree. And if you don’t conform to certain thoughts, ideas, or beliefs, then violence is justified. So Berkeley believes in diversity, but only if said diversity is within certain boundaries- I resisted the temptation to use “walls” in this context as I understand it’s triggering power. This seems to fly in the face of a university’s purpose -allowing for the free exchange of ideas. But now the students of Cal have chosen to forgo the tradition of allowing a free exchange of ideas in a public marketplace. A market that would allow those with true merit and virtue to triumph, and replace it with violence. Reminds me of the phrase, “The first person to resort to violence is the first person to quit thinking.” As I posted in comment to another one of these op-eds with poorly constructed logic and limited understanding of what real violence is, this begins to sound like a declaration of war. A war declared on those you don’t agree with. A war declared by young people who have historically rallied, protested, and even bombed (Weather Underground) to promote peace over the use of violent force. A war where words are equated to physical violence. And sadly, a war declared by people who most certainly don’t have an understanding of what kinetic action really is. What war looks like, feels like, smells like, and even tastes like. All this fire and broken glass might get your adrenal glands moving, but the violence these op-ends are attempting, poorly I must say, to justify is something you don’t want to experience. My strongest advice to you all would be to get back in your lane. Yes, despite what your mom told you, violence does solve problems, but only for those with the strongest minds, trained bodies, coldest hearts and most ammunition. For they will be victorious. Death, loss, and pain isn’t as revolutionary as you’ve been taught. Go to class, think more. You need more practice.

  • Jim Ardis

    So

  • PapayaSF

    I am heartened that this pro-violence, anti-First Amendment nonsense is getting 100% pushback in the comments.

    • AnotherLover

      It’s a pretty awesome sight. Unanimous disgust. I bet you this article is pretty hot stuff in some of the Berkeley campus safe spaces, though!

  • Fred Herbertsh

    I’m gonna beat up every Oregon fan, even though they had nothing to do with Oregon beating Arizona, simply on the premise that Oregon beat my alma mater, I don’t like it, therefore I can justify my violence because I hated the butt kicking Arizona got. Awesome, I love leftist logic!

  • de_ploribus_unum

    There is no such thing as “hate speech.”

  • lylesturgess

    Milo Yiannopoulos: “White pride, white nationalism, white supremacy isn’t the way to go” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywmd8kR-AmI

  • Nina

    I wanted to read this piece, I really did, but the prose was so turgid I just couldn’t slog through it. Hard to believe this author even graduated from high school, much less matriculated at Berkeley.

    • cntrlfrk

      I thought the same thing. It was a painful read

      • Eric_D_Read

        It reeks of psychobabble and desperation.

    • Zack Smith

      Reads like marx

  • carolina mama

    If taxpayers actually had a means of choosing which colleges they wanted to support, financially, and which ones they did not want to support, based on the quality of education provided at the institution, I can guarantee you that Berkeley would not be one of my choices to support.

  • JES2014 ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ

    Whoa…did we just read that?

    So…one man, Milo, expresses his 1A freedoms by fighting with words…but these deranged rioters fight with rocks, clubs, property destruction, fire, and rationalizing murder to shut down that one man’s freedom of expression? Is that right?

    As Hardman says: “The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech…” – 1) Freedom of expression encompasses what you deem ‘hate speech’. Just because you can’t control yourselves emotionally doesn’t mean it’s meant to incite violence. And since you never heard this speech, your argument is invalid. 2) No one can determine what is ‘hate speech’…especially the likes of you, who has no comprehension of the Constitution and our rights.

    Stop being weak-minded ‘victims’ and start being adults.

  • DCPizzaIsSatan

    LOL. Muh puhlaritees.

  • DCPizzaIsSatan

    Was that you Josh who snuck up on that Afghan immigrant girl and clubbed her from behind in the street?

  • Hernan Machado

    Josh — Well-meaning but painfully misguided. Alternative ideas are not the boogeyman. Lighten up, smoke a joint and read outside your safe space every now and then. It’s liberating. You’ve been unwittingly indoctrinated into ‘regressive left’ ideology (aka Bigoteers, CTRL Left, Illiberal Left) …. it’s not a good idea to use violence to squelch those who espouse views you oppose. Try using Socratic reasoning and a debate stage in lieu of limp fists and matches.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph5LdzBE1V4

    • Bob

      “…limp fists and matches.” I chuckled.

  • woodrose

    Milo was de-platformed at Cal, but the violence created an enormous new platform for him. He spoke to millions on TV and his book shot to number one on Amazon.

    Perhaps it is time for Berkeley students to learn the phrase ‘pyrrhic victory.’

    • Ipsophakto

      And he was #1 before the riot.

  • Narv

    The only “facists” I’ve seen or heard about are you guys as the “Black Bloc” do you not understand how screwed up your approach was? How the moment you started violence you lost the arguement ? I know it’s hard to have honest self reflection but you need to do it and soon before you or one of your peers ends up killing someone or getting them themselves killed. Fascism isn’t a left or right wing ideology it’s a mindset that’s you’re following very closely. Change now before it’s too late for you and you ruin your life.

  • woodrose

    Plurality of tactics is a ridiculous idea that has been proven to not work. All protesters at an event are tarred with the vandalism and assaults committed by the most violent among them.

    BlackBloc violence was a cancer on Occupy that helped kill the movement. Peaceful activists stop participating when they know BlackBloc will show up and riot. Google the Chris Hedges article from 2012, ‘The Cancer on Occupy,’

    We must rid the antiTrump resistance of violent BlackBloc anarchists, or they will kill the movement. And they will do so happily. They are bullies that threaten peaceful protesters with violence if they ‘snitch’ or take photos. They invade and ruin demonstrations that were organized by others. They are not our allies.

  • pezcleo

    You do know if violence is permissible as a form a protest then any counter protest can use violence as well. Now consider the fact the conservatives are majority of gun owners in United States. Do you really want to go down that road? Those who want use violence to stop political speech is the behaviour of fascists. In no way shape or form are those that stopped Milo event, the good guys.

  • Barzini

    And who gets to define what hate speech is?

    Donald Trump? Someone appointed by Donald Trump?

    There’s no such thing as hate speech, and just what was it that this gay Jewish man has to say that is so hateful?

    Surely beating people up for listening to what a gay Jewish man has to say is what is hateful here?

  • teflonron

    Screw you, commie scumbags.

  • slomag

    I think you’re missing the fact that when an incident like this gains national attention, that’s a huge win for a guy like Yiannopolous – even if you successfully shut down one speech, you’ve turned the spotlight on a relatively obscure figure. My advice is to peacefully protest the organizers of these events – they are essentially “trolling” you into an emotional reaction. Protest the college republicans for 2 weeks before and after the event, and do it in a peaceful, smart way – there’s no shortage of absurd, embarrassing current events for you to use as ammunition. But on the day of the event, do not protest at all. In fact, leave campus for the evening. Let the story be how eerily quiet Berkeley was the day the fascist came to town. Right now the wind is at the backs of the progressives and every day it gets worse for the right. Nothing could be more detrimental to this momentum than to begin meeting their idiocy with violence.

  • Chantal

    You don’t get to Violently attack people and claim that you are fighting Fascism ,when in fact your group behaved as a fascist .

  • mdsman

    “The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech”
    Actually, that is exactly what the 1st amendment is about
    “Problematize”?
    Your whole opinion piece demonstrates one important fact…You need to spend more time in class

    • Evan Smith

      I’m thinking his time in class is what caused him to be this dumb.

      • mdsman

        LOL
        Peace

      • FreedomFan

        True. Most colleges today make kids dumber than when they arrived.

        • Eric_D_Read

          To be specific, it is mainly the sociology and _____ studies departments that are mostly responsible for this.

    • Peter Karr

      Actually the opinion piece demonstrates that he should spend less time in class. Maybe then he will recover from the brain damage known as left wing indoctrination.

      • mdsman

        LOL
        Touche’
        Peace

    • neutrino

      Actually what he’s spewing is what they teach in class these days.

      • mdsman

        Yea….pretty sad

  • EdmundBurke

    Hey Josh you imbecile, does this look like violence to you?

    https://youtu.be/6IPhNMyGTXM

    You people are as dangerous as the Nazi’s you like to call everybody else. You even have your own Brown Shirts in the Antifa. You keep promoting violence and it will backfire at some point. Stop your insane rhetoric before you get somebody killed. You are a threat to American’s everywhere. The Antifa is a domestic terror organization. The FBI is going to take them out and many of these idiots are going to wake up to a 10-20 year sentence in a Federal Penitentiary. They’ll make some lifer a nice girlfriend.

  • Deplorable Jon in MD

    The primary flaw in your argument is that Administration did not shut down free speech therefore the nihilist had to and were justified in acting.

    “Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, failed to problematize a thoughtless adherence to the First Amendment…”

    Allowing Milo to speak was not a failure of the university administration but a requirement.

    Political speech carries with it the highest level of constitutional protections as the founders recognized that debate required as broad a range of debate as possible. This diverse inclusive level of debate is a strength of a liberal republic as it allows us to be better. It also allows great leaders, like Martin Luther King Jr, Frederick Douglas, or our founding fathers to build public support for their cause.

    The appropriate response to a provocateur is to engage in that debate and, if you can, defeat him in the marketplace of ideas. If Yiannopoulis is as bad as all that it should be easy for you elite academics. The problem is that the progressive left lacks the ability to defend the failures of last 8 years and can only call the opposition names.

    The left has lost that debate. The moral authority they once had is as lost as the southern segregationists they once peacefully protested against in the 60’s. what happened on campus was no different than a book burning and the left knows it.

    Berkeley has fallen to a very low place. Hopefully the university will repair itself by allowing speech that the ruling elite may not agree with to return. After all that’s part of the duty of higher education.

  • R V

    Josh, you’ve been radicalized and it seems to me that your education has done you a great disservice, not preparing you to live in the real world. When you get older, enter the workforce and come to your senses, you should sue Berkeley demanding a full refund. That’s assuming you can land a decent job with a record of such dangerously radical ideas.

  • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

    Petty fascists.

    Today being liberal doesn’t mean much more than having an enemies list that you feel comfortable dehumanizing and intimidating.

    Milo, the gay, Jewish, Gucci-clad Brit, driving around in a bus is a white supremacist threat to “safety” that justifies violence?

    Consider the alternative hypothesis – that you like violence and are just looking for an excuse to unleash it.

    • R V

      Who needs ISIS when we have Berkeley?

  • Ron Jeffries

    “The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the
    unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences”

    ….and YOU decide what speech is hateful, I suppose?

  • Deplorable Bob Leahy

    Does he even realize that fascists are the ones that shut down those who don’t agree with them?

    How ironic!

  • Deplorable Bob Leahy

    The premise of this liberal rant is that Milo is “racist, xenophobic, and sexist”.

    Josh Hardman loses the argument RIGHT THERE, because it is an inaccurate portrayal of the facts!

    The very first thing liberal loons do, is play the race card to shut down the opposition. It is intellectually dishonest.

    • R V

      Berkeley liberals are propagandized and radicalized into a strange alternative world view than Orwell would understand better than most.

  • A Guy In Texas

    UC Berkley, the largest and most expensive kindergarten and child daycare center in the US I suspect.

    • R V

      A Conservative Counter Revolution on campus is what is needed.

  • Tehy

    Why is it that almost half of the articles I see abjectly refuse to admit that the violence went way beyond smashed windows and into smashed bones?

    Well, if that were the case, then he’d have to admit that it was really violence, and that anarchism is actually centered on an axis of rich anti-human thought. Obviously the “plurality of tactics”, such as beating people up and setting fire to just about everything, contributed to cancelling the talks. The question is whether it was the right thing to do…obviously not.

    • pezcleo

      People being hurt doesn’t fit the narrative ….after all you might think they bad the bad guys….oh wait they are!

  • ShadrachSmith

    No, factional tyranny enforced through the ‘heckler’s veto’ cancelled Milo. You are smart enough to figure that out.

  • Jim Mason

    You do realize that “violence” is a two way street. If the legal gun owners of this country, most of whom likely disagree with you, decided to begin excercizing their violent right of “protest”, would you still be of the same view?

    Violence is not a method of protest. It is the weapon of totalitarians, the last defense when the battle of ideas has been lost and ego cannot allow that loss to be suffered.

    Besides all of that, the “enemy” you are fighting you do not even have real kowledge of. Milo is not what you purport him to be. That makes your comments even more terrifying, because not only do you support violent protest, you support it in the name of willful ignorance.

    That, is EXACTLY what totalitarian movements require. An unwavering loyalty to a “good” cause, willful ignorance of the reality of the cause, and a fervor attached to said cause that allows any and all actions to be justified in defense of the cause.

    You are being led astray.

    • Dennis

      Marx and Lenin called folks who are spun up by emotional appeal and rhetorical exceptions to pretended affronts “useful Idiots”. As you said “led astray”.
      After the revolution is done, the elites kill off or enslave these people which are sent to labor camps and the like never to be seen again. The reason is that the elites don’t want such rabble and revolutionaries in their new world. Every socialist regime in the world starts off chanting the people, when it is all said and done it is then the party who the elites control, telling the people, enforcing their will by force of arms..
      Tyranny by any other word or by anyone is simply that, tyranny.
      And you comment about gun owners, it is exactly spot on. It is the right and duty of every American to be able to defend and overthrow tyranny and put down insurrection. It is an ancient right/duty that predates the Constitution and as such owes no privilege to the Constitution. The regulation of arms held by the people does not exist in the Constitution, there is no delegation of authority to government via the Constitution that authorizes the government to regulate arms of any sort. The “well regulated” phrase in the Second Amendment is the drill and movement and orders used for the officers in the daily activities and battle commands of war. This was to ensure that everyone knew the command and how to obey them by right action when small groups were brought together to form large groups. Everyone acting together, that is what well regulated means. Every document supporting the advent of the Constitution will bear this out. I have two degrees, one In law. I am a die hard researcher and Constitutional Scholar, it is my goal to know the exact truth of the Constitution and the “powers delegated are few and defined”, James Madison Federalist 45.
      I am a legal owner, CCW holder and Certified Instructor of Firearms. I literally fire thousands of rounds a year. I train with the police and members of the military. I am not the only one so situated. Your assessment is exactly correct. If you don’t want violence don’t start violence, you may not survive the encounter. If I am attacked, I will respond. The attacker will not like the results. These people acting out their baggage is one thing. Attempting to use violence is another.
      I appreciate your comment. It is spot on and exhibits the wisdom that I hope all people keep close to their hearts.
      God Bless
      PS
      Firearms is only one mode of battle, I am proficient in several. Hand to hand and archaic weapons are also modes that I am well versed in. I don’t think that portion of the audience is aware of the fact that people like me exist everywhere. They do not know who walks among them.

    • neutrino

      They only adopt a pro-violence view when they anticipate they can out number the target group. In perhaps most large metropolitan cities that vote Democrat, that might be right.

  • gekkobear

    So your argument is basically:
    The violence was justified because it stopped speech I don’t like!
    Really?
    Ok… if that’s the new justification for violence. Then lets do this.

    Shall I dole out beatings to anyone as stupid as you so I don’t have to listen to more illogical hypocritical self-serving pablum?
    That’s entirely acceptable and moral in your view; isn’t it?

    Oh, it’s only good when YOU do it?
    Sorry, no. Rules don’t get to work that way.

    Are you entirely positive that justifying violence for opinions you don’t like will work out well for you?
    And will work out well for people you’d prefer not to be harmed who might not be in liberal bastions of idiocy?
    I’d recommend you rethink this call for more violence; you might get what you’re demanding otherwise.

  • Scott McLaughlin

    From a tactical point of view, I think their violence is premature and counter-productive. At some point it may come to violent resistance, but we are far from that time (I hope). I say it’s counterproductive because it causes all progressives to be painted with an extremist slant, and encourages the other side to be yet more despicable. Especially the likes of Milo.

    The point of the author seems to be that Milo’s hateful speech is so beyond the pale of decency that it should be rejected from campus. And that the campus is inherently endorsing his foul ideas by allowing him to speak. But by shutting him down, you would once again be elevating Milo to wider circles.

    I think it would be much more effective to have a silent protest outside and boycott the actual event. Let him yabber at the 10 or 20 republicans who actually show up. Have exactly one person attend to witness, or even record. Then paint the college republicans with the most hateful things said. That becomes a messaging win. Just be careful to not elevate Milo in the process…only quotes referencing the guest of the CR.

    • EdmundBurke

      The better plan would be to challenge him to an open debate and shut him down by superior idea’s. That either never occurs to them or they don’t have confidence that they can beat him in an open debate. I’m sure Milo would love it so there is no excuse. Sheesh, make it a Pay per View event and give the money to charity or the school or something.

  • lspanker

    I hope to problematize these narratives while also arguing that the administration’s failure to deny the Berkeley College Republicans of its racist, xenophobic, sexist extravaganza

    Nothing like making up absolute bullsh!t when you can’t win an argument based on facts or logic.

  • Ron Enfield

    “Plurality of tactics”? Does this imply that there were contending tactical approaches, none of which constituted a majority of the tactics in use, but that the largest fraction of them, though still not a majority, won the day? I think not. Perhaps the writer meant “multiple tactics.” But since I support free speech, I’m stuck tolerating bad speech as well.
    More to the point: I’m against violence as a tactic for suppressing hate speech. There are much better ways.

  • Sayan Ban

    “violence that is proposed, condoned and actioned by the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos…”

    can you please provide some examples of actual violence “proposed, condoned and actioned” by Milo? i think you’ll be hard pressed to find even one.

    • R V

      Students like Josh has been propagandized and radicalized every bit as much as ISIS recruits. They’ve been taught that opposing views are dangerous threats and then rationalize anything to counter that threat. One could almost say their minds have been ruined by their education by radical Berkeley professors and culture. Hopefully, some will outgrow it as they move into the real world. Unfortunately, some have been permanently brain damaged. It’s so sad.

      • Typhoon

        Precisely. And feel free to comment on the other 4 Op-Eds in this paper, which run in the same vein as Josh’s idiocy.

    • neutrino

      That opposing views are violence has been a fanatical view gaining momentum over the last few years on university campuses. I always foresaw it as a prelude to justification of real violence. Then suddenly, boom, here it is! We have to beat up Republicans to make campus safe from “violence.”

  • jim hoch

    So “violence” is not actually violence in the alternative facts zone surrounding Cal? Josh must pity the deluded fools who saw the video clips and thought “that sure looks like violence to me”. My appreciation clearing whether the destruction was Violence (behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something) or simply “violence” which is a political construct or some kind of refractive phenomena.

  • Nunya Beeswax

    As loathsome as it is, hate speech is protected by the same First Amendment that allows you to applaud the Black Bloc’s tactics. If you can’t handle that, perhaps living in a liberal Western democracy is not for you and you should buzz off to whatever paradise most closely resembles France circa 1793.

    • lspanker

      Neil would be happier in what most closely resembles Russia circa 1917.

      • Michael Ejercito

        He can go to Saudi Arabia today.

Tags No tags yet