PDA

View Full Version : Free Speech on College Campuses



troung
02 Feb 17,, 16:48
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-20170201-story.html
Trump suggests cutting federal funds to UC Berkeley after protests force cancellation of Yiannopoulos speech
UC Berkeley protests

A scheduled speech by Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley on Wednesday was canceled amid protests that grew violent.
Matt Hamilton, Teresa Watanabe and Peter H. KingContact Reporters

A speech by conservative firebrand and Milo Yiannopoulos was canceled at UC Berkeley on Wednesday amid violent protests that prompted President Trump to suggest cutting funding to the university.

“If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump wrote on Twitter.

It’s unclear whether Trump was actually threatening to cut funding or making some kind of rhetorical point. The larger UC system, for which Berkeley is the flagship campus, receives billions of dollars from the federal government to fund a variety of programs, notably research, student aide and health care programs.

Research is the most important area.

“Federal funds are the University’s single most important source of support for research, generating $2.8 billion and accounting for nearly 51% of all University research expenditures in 2013-14,” according to a UC report. “While UC researchers receive support from virtually all federal agencies, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are the two largest sponsors, accounting for nearly 80% of UC’s federal research contract and grant awards.”

The UC, for example, manages the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which gets more than $700 million in federal funds, that report said.

In 2013-14, it is estimated that UC students received over $1.6 billion in feral financial aid, including $462 million in gift aid and the remainder in the form of loans and

University officials called off the event about two hours before Yiannopoulos was to speak at the student union, where more than 1,500 people had gathered outside. Some hurled metal barricades and others smashed windows at the student union.

“This is not a proud night for this campus, the home of the free speech movement,” said Dan Mogulof, a Berkeley spokesman. He noted that the vandalism interfered with the ability of the Berkeley College Republicans — who hosted Yiannopoulos — to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

UPDATE: Trump threatens federal funds after UC Berkeley protests

Yiannopoulos, 32, writes for Breitbart News — a popular website among the far right — and he is an avowed supporter of President Trump. He’s also a flamboyant provocateur who has been denounced for propagating racism, misogyny and anti-Islam views, but he styles himself a champion of free speech.

This summer, he gained notoriety for encouraging a barrage of harassment against “Ghostbusters” actress Leslie Jones, which prompted Twitter to ban him from the social media platform.

Controversy, unrest and, occasionally, violence has followed his speaking tour at colleges across the U.S., for which Berkeley was to be the final event. Last month, a man was shot outside a University of Washington hall where Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.

Wednesday’s decision by Berkeley officials is the second time in two weeks that rowdy protests have forced the cancellation of one of his lectures. UC Davis also canceled one of his speeches last month.

At Berkeley, police clashed with protesters, and much of the university was placed on lockdown. Campus police repeatedly ordered protesters to leave the area, threatening the crowd with arrest. Most refused to leave.

At one point, some toppled a generator that was powering a flood light, and the machinery caught fire in the plaza outside the student union. The flames made for dramatic images, and TV helicopters captured the on-campus blaze.

On his Facebook page, Yiannopoulos said that “violent left-wing protesters” had broken into a building’s ground floor, ripped down barricades and thrown rocks.

“My team and I are safe,” Yiannopoulous said.

In characteristic fashion, he pointed to the mayhem on campus to highlight his agenda: “One thing we do know for sure: the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down.”

The protesters seemed as much drawn by Yiannopoulos’ platform as by the broader ascendance of far-right politics.

De’andre Bitter, 72, brought a large sign with LED strips that brightly said “No!”

A retired ship worker originally from Fresno, he stood near the rear of those assembled and said he brought the sign to a slew of recent protests, including a recent women’s march, the airport demonstrations over Trump’s travel restrictions and a protest at UC Davis.

“We go anywhere people are opposing Trump and his fascist regime,” Bitter said. He viewed the vast majority of protesters as peaceful and attributed the violence to a handful of anarchists, who wore mostly black apparel.

Others handed out yellow leaflets, calling Yiannopoulos “a tool of Trump’s possessive fascist government.”

“He has no right to speak at Cal or anywhere else,” the leaflet declared.

By 8 p.m., the crowd had dwindled to a few hundred and spilled into the streets, marching down Telegraph Avenue. The group had a carnival-like element, with a five-piece jazz band that came together by serendipity, with tuba, trombone and clarinet players marching in step.

“Some came on purpose. Some came on accident,” said one of the band members, who declined to be identified.

But the levity was eclipsed by bursts of violence. A handful of demonstrators smashed dowels into a bank of ATMs. Photos on social media showed shattered windows at businesses.

The sprawling group halted traffic at Telegraph and Durant avenues, where one driver plowed a white sedan into the crowd. One of the demonstrators grabbed on to the car for a block, then rolled off uninjured.

Another motorist was injured by the crowd. Bryan Quintana, 29, who delivers food for an Italian restaurant, was in a car near the assembly when he said he was hit and pepper-sprayed by some of the demonstrators.

“I was driving really slow. And somebody hit my car and somebody hit my arm, and hit my head,” Quintana said. His eyes were red and his arm was swollen. He was rattled, but protesters stopped and rushed to pour water on him, to reduce the sting of the pepper spray. He later drove off to deliver an order about a mile away.

On Tuesday, Yiannopoulos spoke at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, where the university braced for large protests and stationed more than 100 police officers. About 150 protesters arrived and remained peaceful, and there were no reports of arrests, according to the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

In his remarks there, Yiannopoulos extolled Cal Poly for having a student population that was mostly male, railed against abortion and provided instructions on how to apply to his male-only scholarship fund, the “privilege grant,” according to text of his remarks published by Breitbart.

The cancellation of his talk at UC Davis sparked debate about the limits of free speech and hate speech. Davis College Republicans decided it was unsafe to continue the event after a large number of protesters blocked access to the venue, according to a release from the school.

UC Davis interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter said he was “deeply disappointed” by the protests and the cancellation and said he worried that outside groups are using college campuses to trigger conflicts intended for the national stage.

“I get very, very alarmed with folks who don't treat [freedom of speech] for the treasure that it is,” he said two weeks ago.

So far, the UC system has resisted calls to cancel Yiannopoulos’ talks. At noon, just hours before Wednesday’s event, Berkeley administrators issued a statement saying they were committed to tolerance as well as free speech.

In the weeks before Yiannopoulos’ planned Berkeley appearance, administrators received hundreds of letters from faculty, students and others demanding they bar him from speaking.

One letter from a dozen faculty members argued that his talk could be canceled on the grounds that his actions — which they called “harassment, slander, defamation and hate speech” — violated UC Berkeley’s code of conduct......

YellowFever
02 Feb 17,, 16:55
What's the problem, Troung??

Obviously it's not free speech unless the leftiess agree with it.

You should know that.

YellowFever
02 Feb 17,, 17:03
The SWJ movement all across the universities are vastly misunderstood.

It is mostly the faculty encouraging the idiot kids.

Old lefty professors vicariously living through their students and trying to relive their glorious past days of protests and disruption.

For them to shed alligator tears while condemning the protests is the height of hypocrasy.

Bridgeburner_
02 Feb 17,, 17:05
Here's a mirror for some videos from the other thread

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-trump-supporters-attacked-outside-berkeley-milo-speech/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-lSDfoVrAc

https://twitter.com/MisterMetokur/status/826991184635654145

Mayor tacitly condones violence, police initially ordered to stand down.

https://twitter.com/JesseArreguin/status/826958754360877057

It's apparent these protests have pre-meditation, funding and organization. Hope AG Sessions will pursue an investigation into this.

43293

kato
02 Feb 17,, 17:37
glorious past days of protests and disruption.
Eh, over in the US it always stays moderately harmless. Zero proper protest culture.

If we'd have someone of similar character speaking the minimum would be explosive and arson attacks on public infrastructure nearby to disrupt incoming traffic. If it's more harmless and no one cared there'd be simply some fake bomb planted visibly at the place. If it's more serious than this there'd be firearms involved. Oh, and we'll have the rallies on top of any of that of course.

1500 protesters? That's what our local anarchists in my town - with a university the same size as Berkeley, and a pretty conservative one to boot - mobilize a couple times per year, generally matched by equal police numbers deployed. Without involving any lefties at all.

YellowFever
02 Feb 17,, 19:39
Eh, over in the US it always stays moderately harmless. Zero proper protest culture.

If we'd have someone of similar character speaking the minimum would be explosive and arson attacks on public infrastructure nearby to disrupt incoming traffic. If it's more harmless and no one cared there'd be simply some fake bomb planted visibly at the place. If it's more serious than this there'd be firearms involved. Oh, and we'll have the rallies on top of any of that of course.

1500 protesters? That's what our local anarchists in my town - with a university the same size as Berkeley, and a pretty conservative one to boot - mobilize a couple times per year, generally matched by equal police numbers deployed. Without involving any lefties at all.

Proper protest culture is good.


So what's so proper about destroying stuff and blocking roads while protesting?

Europeans riot over Uber so it's probably a bad example to apply to our riots.

tbm3fan
02 Feb 17,, 21:10
None of you have a clue as to what happened there yesterday. The article is not telling the true story of what went down. In fact, from what I have seen, no outlet is accurate about what transpired.

Having first set foot on that campus in 1976 and being an actual witness to last night I think I can relate what happened and got indirectly involved.

Now why was I over there? It was Wednesday, my off day, and after finishing on the Hornet at 5pm, I took the back way through Oakland to head up to Bancroft and College for my tall latte at Cafe Strada across from Boalt Hall. I've been going there since 1977 and forgot about this speaker. College is two long blocks above Telegraph.

So let's set out who the players are:

1) The UC Berkeley Administration whose primary focus is to protect the school. They will allow an event but it there is the possibility of violence they will shut it down. That is an old procedure.

2) The Young Republicans have been around as long as I have on campus. Their goal, which goes back to the 70's, has always been to bring in a controversial speaker in order to generate a response from the student body. The speaker has always been brought in as the trigger rather than for speaking.


3) The Student Body has been a liberal student body going back to the 60's. Come on, does anyone think that is going to change. Also a reason why that UC is so damn hard to get into along with it's academic credentials. The student protestors were out there to protest but they were also going to let the speaker speak. They weren't going to let themselves get slammed with the refrain " see the left can't tolerate free speech." They had a nice bonfire going like one sees before big football games.

4) This is the group the news outlets seem to have over looked. They are the organized Anarchists. These people usually infiltrate demonstrations, such as the Occupy protests in Oakland. They show up in small groups mingling into the crowd. When the time is right they put on their black masks and go on the attack smashing whatever including demonstrators. Last night was different. This time they actually marched down Telegraph already in their black clothes and black cloth masks. Much like watching a SS company marching in Berlin. There were somewhere around 100 of them marching three abreast. They carried signs that weren't on thin sticks but on 2x4s. That size is good for breaking things. When they reached Bancroft and Telegraph, which is the South entrance into the campus starting with Sproul Plaza, they surged straight into group 3 and all hell broke loose. Police weren't there to stop that. Along the way they started fires, blocked Durant, smashed windows and hit protestors.

It was at this point that the speak was canceled. So the University protected the campus, the Young Republicans got what they wanted which was to demonize the protestors, and the anarchists got what they wanted which was to raise hell and cause havoc no matter who you were. Seems our local scoop news reporter saw pretty much the same thing.


His audio interview Feb. 2nd black circle white arrow: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/audio/phil-matier/

troung
02 Feb 17,, 23:51
Cut federal funding, let these colleges sort themselves out...

Doktor
03 Feb 17,, 00:17
None of you have a clue as to what happened there yesterday. The article is not telling the true story of what went down. In fact, from what I have seen, no outlet is accurate about what transpired.

Having first set foot on that campus in 1976 and being an actual witness to last night I think I can relate what happened and got indirectly involved.

Now why was I over there? It was Wednesday, my off day, and after finishing on the Hornet at 5pm, I took the back way through Oakland to head up to Bancroft and College for my tall latte at Cafe Strada across from Boalt Hall. I've been going there since 1977 and forgot about this speaker. College is two long blocks above Telegraph.

So let's set out who the players are:

1) The UC Berkeley Administration whose primary focus is to protect the school. They will allow an event but it there is the possibility of violence they will shut it down. That is an old procedure.

2) The Young Republicans have been around as long as I have on campus. Their goal, which goes back to the 70's, has always been to bring in a controversial speaker in order to generate a response from the student body. The speaker has always been brought in as the trigger rather than for speaking.


3) The Student Body has been a liberal student body going back to the 60's. Come on, does anyone think that is going to change. Also a reason why that UC is so damn hard to get into along with it's academic credentials. The student protestors were out there to protest but they were also going to let the speaker speak. They weren't going to let themselves get slammed with the refrain " see the left can't tolerate free speech." They had a nice bonfire going like one sees before big football games.

4) This is the group the news outlets seem to have over looked. They are the organized Anarchists. These people usually infiltrate demonstrations, such as the Occupy protests in Oakland. They show up in small groups mingling into the crowd. When the time is right they put on their black masks and go on the attack smashing whatever including demonstrators. Last night was different. This time they actually marched down Telegraph already in their black clothes and black cloth masks. Much like watching a SS company marching in Berlin. There were somewhere around 100 of them marching three abreast. They carried signs that weren't on thin sticks but on 2x4s. That size is good for breaking things. When they reached Bancroft and Telegraph, which is the South entrance into the campus starting with Sproul Plaza, they surged straight into group 3 and all hell broke loose. Police weren't there to stop that. Along the way they started fires, blocked Durant, smashed windows and hit protestors.

It was at this point that the speak was canceled. So the University protected the campus, the Young Republicans got what they wanted which was to demonize the protestors, and the anarchists got what they wanted which was to raise hell and cause havoc no matter who you were. Seems our local scoop news reporter saw pretty much the same thing.


His audio interview Feb. 2nd black circle white arrow: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/audio/phil-matier/

Over here the organizer of the protest carries the entire responsibility for the safety of the participants, bystanders and the property. I think it is fair that way, do you?

Doktor
03 Feb 17,, 00:18
Eh, over in the US it always stays moderately harmless. Zero proper protest culture.

If we'd have someone of similar character speaking the minimum would be explosive and arson attacks on public infrastructure nearby to disrupt incoming traffic. If it's more harmless and no one cared there'd be simply some fake bomb planted visibly at the place. If it's more serious than this there'd be firearms involved. Oh, and we'll have the rallies on top of any of that of course.

1500 protesters? That's what our local anarchists in my town - with a university the same size as Berkeley, and a pretty conservative one to boot - mobilize a couple times per year, generally matched by equal police numbers deployed. Without involving any lefties at all.

So, the South Koreans have no protest culture? 1.500.000 people on the main square, zero incidents, zero injured, zero damaged property and they cleaned up on the way home. Were they unheard?

tbm3fan
03 Feb 17,, 02:54
Over here the organizer of the protest carries the entire responsibility for the safety of the participants, bystanders and the property. I think it is fair that way, do you?

Good luck with that. How do you hold a non-student organizer who co-opts the protest with their people and their purpose not to mention the other group in black. Actually I feel bad for the students since once word gets out a whole mass of denizens from the region show up and chaos ensues. It's like a tweet saying there is a cool party at someone's house and 1000 people show up. Actually students showed up today to help clean up.

The building for the speech is the large one on the right side of the photo. That building is right on Bancroft and Durant not buried in the middle of campus. The big open area is Sproul Plaza where I spent many a day girl watching. Also noted many of the people there were not students. That entry point is used to move from the south side of campus to the north side by pedestrians and bicyclists. This is a wide open campus unlike most others in California. I was up the road by Bowditch, a full long block away (east), knowing full well trouble would migrate down (west) towards Shattuck when things got rolling.

YellowFever
03 Feb 17,, 03:19
So, the South Koreans have no protest culture? 1.500.000 people on the main square, zero incidents, zero injured, zero damaged property and they cleaned up on the way home. Were they unheard?

Over here in Los Angeles, the LAPD is on record as saying they hope the Koreans would gather more.

Once they disperse, the streets are always cleaner than when they started.

But in defense of Kato, things don't always happen that way. :)


https://youtu.be/DJ5o69v-oY8

LongLurker
03 Feb 17,, 05:31
None of you have a clue as to what happened there yesterday. The article is not telling the true story of what went down. In fact, from what I have seen, no outlet is accurate about what transpired.

Having first set foot on that campus in 1976 and being an actual witness to last night I think I can relate what happened and got indirectly involved.

Now why was I over there? It was Wednesday, my off day, and after finishing on the Hornet at 5pm, I took the back way through Oakland to head up to Bancroft and College for my tall latte at Cafe Strada across from Boalt Hall. I've been going there since 1977 and forgot about this speaker. College is two long blocks above Telegraph.

So let's set out who the players are:

1) The UC Berkeley Administration whose primary focus is to protect the school. They will allow an event but it there is the possibility of violence they will shut it down. That is an old procedure.

2) The Young Republicans have been around as long as I have on campus. Their goal, which goes back to the 70's, has always been to bring in a controversial speaker in order to generate a response from the student body. The speaker has always been brought in as the trigger rather than for speaking.


3) The Student Body has been a liberal student body going back to the 60's. Come on, does anyone think that is going to change. Also a reason why that UC is so damn hard to get into along with it's academic credentials. The student protestors were out there to protest but they were also going to let the speaker speak. They weren't going to let themselves get slammed with the refrain " see the left can't tolerate free speech." They had a nice bonfire going like one sees before big football games.

4) This is the group the news outlets seem to have over looked. They are the organized Anarchists. These people usually infiltrate demonstrations, such as the Occupy protests in Oakland. They show up in small groups mingling into the crowd. When the time is right they put on their black masks and go on the attack smashing whatever including demonstrators. Last night was different. This time they actually marched down Telegraph already in their black clothes and black cloth masks. Much like watching a SS company marching in Berlin. There were somewhere around 100 of them marching three abreast. They carried signs that weren't on thin sticks but on 2x4s. That size is good for breaking things. When they reached Bancroft and Telegraph, which is the South entrance into the campus starting with Sproul Plaza, they surged straight into group 3 and all hell broke loose. Police weren't there to stop that. Along the way they started fires, blocked Durant, smashed windows and hit protestors.

It was at this point that the speak was canceled. So the University protected the campus, the Young Republicans got what they wanted which was to demonize the protestors, and the anarchists got what they wanted which was to raise hell and cause havoc no matter who you were. Seems our local scoop news reporter saw pretty much the same thing.


His audio interview Feb. 2nd black circle white arrow: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/audio/phil-matier/

Given how apparently longstanding this is, and how clear it is that the speaker will be controversial, and the existence of this 'anarchist' group, is there a reason that support from the city was not called in for assistance in advance?

I mean, if it's so obvious then pro-active measures should have been foreseen and taken right?

Even more unforgivable is the police (not the campus police) just allowed the riot to occur. No attempt to stop them.

If this group is some sort of organized group, there must be some 'meeting ground' physical or digital, and it should be possible to 'infiltrate' the group.

tbm3fan
03 Feb 17,, 08:36
Given how apparently longstanding this is, and how clear it is that the speaker will be controversial, and the existence of this 'anarchist' group, is there a reason that support from the city was not called in for assistance in advance?

I mean, if it's so obvious then pro-active measures should have been foreseen and taken right?

Even more unforgivable is the police (not the campus police) just allowed the riot to occur. No attempt to stop them.

If this group is some sort of organized group, there must be some 'meeting ground' physical or digital, and it should be possible to 'infiltrate' the group.

How the hell anyone would know outside of city hall is anyone's guess. City police do not come onto campus unless called upon. Campus police have always protected the buildings going back as far as I can remember. They will let you mess up the concrete Sproul Plaza but draw the line at trying to enter a building.

Now once the action moved west down Bancroft to Shattuck, about five blocks, those people had no affiliation with the students at Sproul Plaza. They were the anarchists that Phil Matier described as having poles and heavy duty plastic signs aka shields. From my point of view, farther away, I thought they were 2x4s. Either way a weapon brought to the scene for one purpose only. Why the City Police of Berkeley were not out in force at that point beats me.

The meeting ground for the group I assume is digital. If you are going to infiltrate then you need to be between 18-30 and male.

DOR
03 Feb 17,, 12:18
None of you have a clue as to what happened there yesterday. The article is not telling the true story of what went down. In fact, from what I have seen, no outlet is accurate about what transpired.

Having first set foot on that campus in 1976 and being an actual witness to last night I think I can relate what happened and got indirectly involved.

Now why was I over there? It was Wednesday, my off day, and after finishing on the Hornet at 5pm, I took the back way through Oakland to head up to Bancroft and College for my tall latte at Cafe Strada across from Boalt Hall. I've been going there since 1977 and forgot about this speaker. College is two long blocks above Telegraph.

So let's set out who the players are:

1) The UC Berkeley Administration whose primary focus is to protect the school. They will allow an event but it there is the possibility of violence they will shut it down. That is an old procedure.

2) The Young Republicans have been around as long as I have on campus. Their goal, which goes back to the 70's, has always been to bring in a controversial speaker in order to generate a response from the student body. The speaker has always been brought in as the trigger rather than for speaking.


3) The Student Body has been a liberal student body going back to the 60's. Come on, does anyone think that is going to change. Also a reason why that UC is so damn hard to get into along with it's academic credentials. The student protestors were out there to protest but they were also going to let the speaker speak. They weren't going to let themselves get slammed with the refrain " see the left can't tolerate free speech." They had a nice bonfire going like one sees before big football games.

4) This is the group the news outlets seem to have over looked. They are the organized Anarchists. These people usually infiltrate demonstrations, such as the Occupy protests in Oakland. They show up in small groups mingling into the crowd. When the time is right they put on their black masks and go on the attack smashing whatever including demonstrators. Last night was different. This time they actually marched down Telegraph already in their black clothes and black cloth masks. Much like watching a SS company marching in Berlin. There were somewhere around 100 of them marching three abreast. They carried signs that weren't on thin sticks but on 2x4s. That size is good for breaking things. When they reached Bancroft and Telegraph, which is the South entrance into the campus starting with Sproul Plaza, they surged straight into group 3 and all hell broke loose. Police weren't there to stop that. Along the way they started fires, blocked Durant, smashed windows and hit protestors.

It was at this point that the speak was canceled. So the University protected the campus, the Young Republicans got what they wanted which was to demonize the protestors, and the anarchists got what they wanted which was to raise hell and cause havoc no matter who you were. Seems our local scoop news reporter saw pretty much the same thing.


His audio interview Feb. 2nd black circle white arrow: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/audio/phil-matier/

Exactly as I remember the players being aligned in the 1977-83 period when I was at Cal as both an undergrad and grad student.
After SDSU, it was eye-opening.

Doktor
03 Feb 17,, 13:42
How the hell anyone would know outside of city hall is anyone's guess. City police do not come onto campus unless called upon. Campus police have always protected the buildings going back as far as I can remember. They will let you mess up the concrete Sproul Plaza but draw the line at trying to enter a building.

Now once the action moved west down Bancroft to Shattuck, about five blocks, those people had no affiliation with the students at Sproul Plaza. They were the anarchists that Phil Matier described as having poles and heavy duty plastic signs aka shields. From my point of view, farther away, I thought they were 2x4s. Either way a weapon brought to the scene for one purpose only. Why the City Police of Berkeley were not out in force at that point beats me.

The meeting ground for the group I assume is digital. If you are going to infiltrate then you need to be between 18-30 and male.

So, it's a fail of the LEO's and campus security?

tbm3fan
03 Feb 17,, 18:14
So, it's a fail of the LEO's and campus security?

Well not campus police. One, they really aren't trained in that kind of crowd control. Two, there isn't a lot of them. Third, with most across the imaginary line along Bancroft, the sidewalk, it is out of their jurisdiction. As for the City of Berkeley one could make a good case as to why they weren't out and I'm sure damaged businesses are.

Wooglin
28 Apr 17,, 18:37
Ah, the spoiled little crybullies are at it again... and of course it works again.

Way to go Berkeley.

http://opslens.com/2017/04/18/uc-berkeley-place-free-speech-ends-violence-begins/

http://nypost.com/2017/04/22/berkeley-is-still-appeasing-the-the-anti-free-speech-bullies/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/us/berkeley-ann-coulter-free-speech/

tbm3fan
29 Apr 17,, 00:32
For someone has never been on the campus of UC Berkeley, much less the City of Berkeley you know very little as expected.

You are probably one of those who agree/think Berkeley was the cradle of Free Speech. Are they talking about the City of Berkeley? If so then you would be wrong. Are they talking about the University? Then, again, you would be wrong. Are you talking about Mario Savio and the student demonstrations? If so you would be right as they are responsible. Don't even have to take if from me, although I have been around Berkeley since 1972, you can take it from the father of the conservative movement Ronald Reagan. The man, who while running for governor in 1968, has said he would send in the police to shut down these demonstrations and the Free Speech movement. Seems Ronnie wasn't a fan of it back then.

Those first two articles above are a joke using older news to make a point about yesterday. The last article quoting the student is farfetched. People seem to mix the City of Berkeley and the University of California at Berkeley up. The University is to Berkeley as the Vatican is to Rome. Today Cal is possibly the toughest University to get into in California with Stanford and UCLA right behind. As such no one gets in with less than a 4.0 GPA. Sixty five percent are from in state and thirty five percent are out of state and out of country admissions. Got news for you they are not progressives at all. Some are liberal, some are conservative and many don't care because the main goal is stay in a super tough school and get good grades for their degree.

The next thing about Cal is the absolute huge diversity one sees. I'd have to think long and hard to come up with a university more diverse than Cal. I know I was surprised by it when I first set foot on campus as compared to SDSU. SDSU almost all white while Cal had Asians of many backgrounds in the 70's. Not to mention that once you walked across Bancroft, off campus, the whole place became a circus. Needless to say one pretty much needs to be open to all the different people they will run into in class. I have many patients going there now from different ethnic backgrounds. All hard working serious students but none of them would be called activist.

So what happened yesterday after all the demands that the University provide the appropriate on campus venue for this speech. Although the University has no obligation to provide a campus venue to anyone outside of the campus. Well, the anarchists didn't show up and that was a plus as they don't like anybody on any side. Those on the right showed up and a far amount were prepared with helmets and what could be called weapons. Students didn't show up as Cal is into the last two weeks of school and there were better things to do like finals preparation. However, some students from Berkeley High showed up wanting to talk and actually wowed some of those on the right. One thing about Berkeley High is that those students have an amazing awareness of things going on around them and the world. Clearly outpace any high school in the Midwest. Hell, clearly outpaced my Catholic high school in San Diego by a little bit if it weren't for Vietnam which had all on edge.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Protesters-begin-to-gather-for-counter-11103790.php

Although I am of the opinion that all this was a publicity stunt to gain footage for future use by which ever side. The interesting thing to me is that I never see any kind of leftist group want to speak in a place like Dallas TX. to make a point like the right using Berkeley.

YellowFever
29 Apr 17,, 02:29
These Berkely high school kids are so stupid.

Only ones dumber are the professors....


https://youtu.be/MzCU1brRZXM

zraver
29 Apr 17,, 03:15
The interesting thing to me is that I never see any kind of leftist group want to speak in a place like Dallas TX. to make a point like the right using Berkeley.

They speak there, but the Right doesn't riot and burn things down to stop them so it doesn't make the news. The importance of Berkely is not who is speaking, it is that they have been repeatedly shut down with violence.

tbm3fan
29 Apr 17,, 06:13
They speak there, but the Right doesn't riot and burn things down to stop them so it doesn't make the news. The importance of Berkely is not who is speaking, it is that they have been repeatedly shut down with violence.

I do hope you know that your opinion is worthless. You have actually no experience in anything concerning facts as they relate to Berkeley. I am sure you didn't go to the University, I'm sure you have never been near the city, I'm sure you have never been near the East Bay Area, lived for any length of time in the Bay Area, maybe not even lived in California. You have no in person facts whatsoever. You simply pontificate on stuff that you have read rather than first hand experience. All of us out here know the City of Berkeley is on the fringe but you can't even separate fact from fiction. Well, your qualified at that if nothing else.

Me, lots of first hand experience all over the Bay Area. In fact I can tell you when the last actual student involvement occurred on campus that was students only. Since then everything has been off campus agitators. So I'll narrow the time frame down to 1977-1981 as to when that last heated event happened. I actually got involved in it inadvertently with some of my professional grad school classmates. What's your guess?

DOR
29 Apr 17,, 09:02
I do hope you know that your opinion is worthless. You have actually no experience in anything concerning facts as they relate to Berkeley. I am sure you didn't go to the University, I'm sure you have never been near the city, I'm sure you have never been near the East Bay Area, lived for any length of time in the Bay Area, maybe not even lived in California. You have no in person facts whatsoever. You simply pontificate on stuff that you have read rather than first hand experience. All of us out here know the City of Berkeley is on the fringe but you can't even separate fact from fiction. Well, your qualified at that if nothing else.

Me, lots of first hand experience all over the Bay Area. In fact I can tell you when the last actual student involvement occurred on campus that was students only. Since then everything has been off campus agitators. So I'll narrow the time frame down to 1977-1981 as to when that last heated event happened. I actually got involved in it inadvertently with some of my professional grad school classmates. What's your guess?

Amen.

Cal Class of '80
MA, '83

TopHatter
29 Apr 17,, 19:47
2 posts removed. Stop this immature nonsense immediately. You and the WAB are better than this.

Doktor
29 Apr 17,, 21:00
2 posts removed. Stop this immature nonsense immediately. You and the WAB are better than this.

We are better than post #23, too.

zraver
29 Apr 17,, 21:23
I do hope you know that your opinion is worthless. You have actually no experience in anything concerning facts as they relate to Berkeley. I am sure you didn't go to the University, I'm sure you have never been near the city, I'm sure you have never been near the East Bay Area, lived for any length of time in the Bay Area, maybe not even lived in California. You have no in person facts whatsoever. You simply pontificate on stuff that you have read rather than first hand experience. All of us out here know the City of Berkeley is on the fringe but you can't even separate fact from fiction. Well, your qualified at that if nothing else.

Me, lots of first hand experience all over the Bay Area. In fact I can tell you when the last actual student involvement occurred on campus that was students only. Since then everything has been off campus agitators. So I'll narrow the time frame down to 1977-1981 as to when that last heated event happened. I actually got involved in it inadvertently with some of my professional grad school classmates. What's your guess?

Funny, that Berkeley and Cal are being sued for collusion in preventing conservative speakers while allowing liberal speakers. College Republicans want to brign conservtive speakers. Liberals threaten to riot, Berkeley and Cal collude to prevent speaker from speaking giving the Liberlas a hecklers veto violating the College Republicans from enjoying the same access as liberal students. This is a prima facia violation of the strict scrutiny standard applied to the First Amendment when message is targeted.

https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/899930656811497/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

TopHatter
29 Apr 17,, 22:18
We are better than post #23, too.

Agreed, removed. Thank you.

YellowFever
29 Apr 17,, 22:48
Mod Edit: Try that post again, this time without the snarky bullshit

YellowFever
30 Apr 17,, 00:36
Mod Edit: Try that post again, this time without the snarky bullshit

Uh.....

No thank you.

tbm3fan
30 Apr 17,, 05:26
Funny, that Berkeley and Cal are being sued for collusion in preventing conservative speakers while allowing liberal speakers. College Republicans want to brign conservtive speakers. Liberals threaten to riot, Berkeley and Cal collude to prevent speaker from speaking giving the Liberlas a hecklers veto violating the College Republicans from enjoying the same access as liberal students. This is a prima facia violation of the strict scrutiny standard applied to the First Amendment when message is targeted.

https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/899930656811497/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

Like I said your opinion is worthless repetition. Now when you arrive in Berkeley and obtain first hand information then you might have something. You seem like a smart guy but you make me wonder. I don't live in Arkansas and consequently would never voice an opinion about what goes on in the state. I'm smart enough to realize that yet you feel you have more knowledge regarding Berkeley than a person who has lived within 15 miles of it for 45 years.

DOR
30 Apr 17,, 09:39
We are better than post #23, too.

You're referring to my "Amen" ?

Doktor
30 Apr 17,, 10:07
Like I said your opinion is worthless repetition. Now when you arrive in Berkeley and obtain first hand information then you might have something. You seem like a smart guy but you make me wonder. I don't live in Arkansas and consequently would never voice an opinion about what goes on in the state. I'm smart enough to realize that yet you feel you have more knowledge regarding Berkeley than a person who has lived within 15 miles of it for 45 years.

He voices his opinion based on what he reads and sees in media. Is it a bad thing? Dang, we should all post just for what happens around us.

I can see why you keep repeating it is not the same as a first hand experience. Sure it's not.
A lot of things happened here and when I saw them on the news my reaction was "where the hell am I". But, that's how things are.

Doktor
30 Apr 17,, 10:08
You're referring to my "Amen" ?

No, it is deleted now, so your post took the position.

TopHatter
30 Apr 17,, 15:11
Like I said your opinion is worthless repetition. Now when you arrive in Berkeley and obtain first hand information then you might have something. You seem like a smart guy but you make me wonder. I don't live in Arkansas and consequently would never voice an opinion about what goes on in the state. I'm smart enough to realize that yet you feel you have more knowledge regarding Berkeley than a person who has lived within 15 miles of it for 45 years.

TBM, that's a VERY limiting set of criteria. Sometimes somebody can be right on top of the situation and not see the forest for the trees. Stepping back and looking at something from afar can be just as useful as having boots on the ground. There's no reason to question Zraver's intelligence either.

TopHatter
30 Apr 17,, 16:06
Berkeley praises police for keeping peace at Coulter rallies

BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) — Berkeley officials declared their handling of protests over Ann Coulter's canceled appearance a success thanks to a massive police presence that ensured the city did not become a "fight club," the mayor said Friday.

Hundreds of Coulter's supporters gathered in a downtown park Thursday after the University of California, Berkeley, nixed a speech by the conservative commentator. Many of them came dressed for conflict, wearing flak jackets, ballistic helmets adorned with pro-President Donald Trump stickers and other protective gear.

There were tense shouting matches but no major confrontations between Coulter's supporters and opponents, who held a nearby counter-rally. The two sides were separated by a wall of riot police, while hundreds of other officers were deployed around the city and campus.

"Having a large police presence definitely helped yesterday," Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin told San Francisco TV station KTVU on Friday. "What we saw was people in the park speaking out, there were lots of discussions and debates that happened, and that's what we wanted to facilitate.

"But nobody crossed the line to violence, and that's what we wanted. We don't want to turn our city into a fight club," the mayor said.

Police and officials, both for the city and its prominent public university, have faced criticism for failing to keep the peace at several political rallies in recent months that have erupted in violence.

This time, police said they took a new approach, including a large deployment of visible officers and a low tolerance for violence. Seven people were arrested, including one for obstructing an officer and wearing a mask to evade police, and another for possessing a knife.

Officers on campus also took selfies with students to try to lighten the mood.

Neither the university nor the police have disclosed how many officers were involved, but UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said it had backup from a "wide range" of law enforcement agencies.

It is not clear how much the security cost, but Arreguin said the university footed the bill.

"This was a university event, they invited Ann Coulter and so they took on the responsibility of paying for, calling in mutual aid and helping coordinate with the city the mutual response," Arreguin said.

Coulter was invited to speak by campus Republicans, who also had invited right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulous to speak in February. That event was canceled because of violent protests by a left-wing extremist group that smashed windows on campus and set fires outside the student union.

Arreguin also attributed Friday's peaceful rallies to the fact that the "very extremist left-wing groups didn't really show up," as had been expected.

Berkeley, birthplace of the U.S. free speech movement in the 1960s, has emerged as a flashpoint for the extreme left and right amid debate over free speech.

Earlier this month, a bloody brawl broke out in downtown Berkeley at a pro-Trump protest that featured speeches by members of a self-described white nationalist group. They clashed with a group of left-wing Trump critics who called themselves anti-fascists.

Officials at UC Berkeley had said they feared renewed violence on campus if Coulter followed through with plans to speak despite the cancellation, citing "very specific intelligence" about threats that could endanger Coulter and students. Coulter said the threats were motivated by a university bias against conservative speakers.

She posted Friday on Twitter about the peaceful rallies in Berkeley: "Amazing what cops doing their jobs can accomplish!" Link (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ann-coulter-no-show-raucous-peaceful-berkeley-rally-070118197.html)

Ironduke
30 Apr 17,, 16:10
This whole idea of safe spaces, trigger words, and micro-aggressions is absolutely ridiculous.

Unfortunately, the newest generation has mostly been brought up believing they are special snowflakes, that they are entitled to and deserve everything, that they are owed, that they are unique, and that they have qualities that cannot be found in any other individual. Easily bruised egos with even the least amount of criticism.

I have a theory that increasing reliance on various technologies either causes brain atrophy, or the brain never develops certain areas. The symptoms of this issue are playing themselves out in various ways as technology progresses and new generations are born.

For example, people used to have intricate, well-developed mental mapping systems - thousands of taxi cab drivers have had CT scans in studies, and they've found that the mapping area of their brain is much, much larger than the rest of the population.

Most people born and raised in the GPS/smartphone era, this part of the brain simply never came into existence. Most young people in developed countries do not know what direction east or west is, even if it's the crack of dawn or the sun is just setting.

The human brain is like this - if it no longer has a need for a certain area because of technology or whatever - the brain develops more in certain areas to the detriment of other pre-existing areas that had been with us for millennia. It's even thought that prehistoric humans had a 10-20x better sense of smell than modern humans - but once dogs entered the picture, they were already so much better at it than us that the area of the human brain dedicated to smell shrunk to 5-10% of its former size, as there was a far lesser need for it with the dog at our side. Obviously it wasn't a complete loss - after dogs started herding animals for us, herding then directly led to farming, and hence civilization. With the smell center having shrunk, other parts of the brain were allowed to grow larger which was conducive toward a more highly developed language, science, technology, etc.

Obviously, as shown by evidence in the taxi cab driver study - these changes to the brain can happen within a single lifetime and are not reliant on genetics for them to occur. And I believe we're seeing these changes across entire populations in this technological age we live in.

Doktor
30 Apr 17,, 17:13
And I thought it's related to how we raise kids at home.

TopHatter
30 Apr 17,, 17:17
This whole idea of safe spaces, trigger words, and micro-aggressions is absolutely ridiculous.

Unfortunately, the newest generation has mostly been brought up believing they are special snowflakes, that they are entitled to and deserve everything, that they are owed, that they are unique, and that they have qualities that cannot be found in any other individual. Easily bruised egos with even the least amount of criticism.
I read this somewhere (maybe here on the WAB?), something to the effect of "You don't go to college to have your beliefs validated and have yourself protected...you're preparing yourself for the real world, more than anything else."

I'm quoting badly, I thought I'd saved it somewhere. Anyway, that's the gist of it.

To which I would add: You go to primary school K-12 to learn how to learn. You go to college to learn how to function as an adult, a solo unit responsible for yourself.


I have a theory that increasing reliance on various technologies either causes brain atrophy, or the brain never develops certain areas. The symptoms of this issue are playing themselves out in various ways as technology progresses and new generations are born.
The usual retort to the "This generation sucks" complaint is "People have always said that about the younger generation!"

My reply is what you just said. Never before has technology existied like this been able to replace so many basic human interactions or or functions. It's not the same as previous generations. Not by a long shot.

TopHatter
30 Apr 17,, 17:18
And I thought it's related to how we raise kids at home.

It is Dok. It's the complete package. And we're failing badly. Time will only tell what the true long-term consequences are. We can already see the short-term.

astralis
30 Apr 17,, 18:52
TH,


My reply is what you just said. Never before has technology existied like this been able to replace so many basic human interactions or or functions. It's not the same as previous generations. Not by a long shot.

you're right in that there's definitely changes that previous generations did not have to deal with-- but that's been a truism in the last two hundred years. the jump between horse messenger and telegraph was an enormous one, far bigger than the difference between the telegraph/phone/internet, for instance.

moreover, while there's some aspects of technology that replace basic human interactions or functions, there are others where it either enhances or augments those same interactions/functions.

taking ironduke's assertion that "people used to have intricate, well-developed mental mapping systems"-- well, no, people used to just get -lost-. :-)

so yeah, we mock "safe spaces, trigger words, and microaggressions", but on the other hand, pretty sure those hippies were more than equal to living up to the "ridiculousness" standard. or, for that matter, the oh-so-grungy Gen-Xers...:-)

trying to assert broad sociological effects from continually ongoing technological changes doesn't really work well. it's actually pretty funny to see increasing numbers of my particular generational cohort (early 1980s) go through their own get-off-my-lawn screeds (http://elitedaily.com/life/confessions-old-millennial/1399056/) as they try to differentiate themselves from younger millennials or whatever the next generation is called.

zraver
30 Apr 17,, 20:56
Like I said your opinion is worthless repetition. Now when you arrive in Berkeley and obtain first hand information then you might have something. You seem like a smart guy but you make me wonder. I don't live in Arkansas and consequently would never voice an opinion about what goes on in the state. I'm smart enough to realize that yet you feel you have more knowledge regarding Berkeley than a person who has lived within 15 miles of it for 45 years.

I don't need to live on a farm to know that occasionally it smells like bullshit. Berkeley and Cal are being sued for collusion to stop conservative speakers. CAL students did block white students from the entrance to the campus. Some of the black bloc rioters were in fact Cal students.

tbm3fan
30 Apr 17,, 21:06
He voices his opinion based on what he reads and sees in media. Is it a bad thing? Dang, we should all post just for what happens around us.

I can see why you keep repeating it is not the same as a first hand experience. Sure it's not.
A lot of things happened here and when I saw them on the news my reaction was "where the hell am I". But, that's how things are.

Media as in the facebook link. Facebook! Give me a break.

Parihaka
30 Apr 17,, 21:14
[SIZE=3]
[B]"Having a large police presence definitely helped yesterday," Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin told San Francisco TV station KTVU on Friday. "What we saw was people in the park speaking out, there were lots of discussions and debates that happened, and that's what we wanted to facilitate.
If you scroll down this link (http://archive.is/dWKfR)you'll see that until it was reported, Jesse Arreguin was a facebook member of BAMN (http://www.bamn.com/tag/berkeley)

tbm3fan
30 Apr 17,, 22:13
I don't need to live on a farm to know that occasionally it smells like bullshit. Berkeley and Cal are being sued for collusion to stop conservative speakers. CAL students did block white students from the entrance to the campus. Some of the black bloc rioters were in fact Cal students.

LOL! Some of the black bloc rioters were in fact Cal students? Have you ever seen one in person? Do these Cal students dress up in this costume to travel all potential hot spots in the Bay Area? Simply unbelievable a 4.0+GPA anarchist.

Cal students blocked white students from campus!!! Are you implying non-white Cal students blocked white Cal students from the entrance to campus? Again were you there to see for your self? Can you tell the difference between who is a Cal student and who isn't? I'm sure you are assuming everyone who is in Sproul Plaza must be a student. I counter that many of those in that area are non-students who have been coming on campus for 50 years. How do I know? I been there enough to see who is and who isn't.

Frankly I don't give a damn about what happens in the immediate area off campus. It is all political theater by both sides who picked the place where one could get the biggest reaction to use for their base and propaganda. I don't care about either side. Yet don't get holier than thou about how Coulter was all about free speech. She isn't but it was a great hook to use. Just as Trump is no fan of free speech either as he looks into ways to alter libel laws which is an early and insidious way to attack free speech. The lawyer representing the group suing is a nice touch though.

However, I do care when someone with no knowledge thinks they innately know what the University of California at Berkeley is all about while amazingly having never set foot on campus. Sorry, TH, but when it comes to that neither Z or even you have the background that could compare to mine or another alumni like DOR. We know the school better than any here and know that only an incredibly small amount of Cal students have ever been involved with any of this over the decades. Students are here to learn and if you took a walk around the school you would see that first hand and realize what I say. Walk off campus, onto Telegraph and you have crossed into the Twilight Zone as it is that different. Want tie dyed, hand made jewelry or drug accessories then that is the place for you as it is still 1968.

Last those who look through the narrow prism of a tight camera shot on their particular media sight you are missing much. The wider shot of the scene Thursday in Sproul Plaza confirms what I already knew was true. This shot is of the Young Republicans giving an interview, they have been around for decades on campus like others and no one paid much attention then, nor are they now. Here is a campus with 33,000 students and how many are seen in the background? With dozens of campus entrances only a small percentage of students need to go through here. I never went through here in four years. I have sat there though to watch the Asian girls and now and then the assorted kooks, nuts, oddballs, and the few campus activists set up their tables. On a normal day of today most of all that has disappeared except for the girl watching. By the way half the people in that crowd aren't students at all just so you know Z not that it matters. In fact, on weekends, this whole area is devoid of students and taken over by all the street denizens off Telegraph. I do like the shot as the guy in the white shirt at the back retainer wall is sitting in my spot while the fountain is still empty going on 40+ years. Anyone want to guess why?

tbm3fan
01 May 17,, 00:47
One more thing about these nine campuses. In years past I heard from those uninformed that UCLA was home to the Jewish American princess, UC Santa Cruz to the tree hugger and UCB to the radical activist. Some here think that. You, as an applicant, don't get to choose the school. The school doesn't get to choose the applicant. One application is submitted to the UC Regents were you list your preferences if you so desire. In 2016 206,000 applied to the UC System. Many state residents applied to four schools which can explain the 119,000 to request UCLA, 103,000 to UC San Diego and 102,000 to UCB to name a few. For UCLA 18% got their choice while UC San Diego 35,2% got theirs, and 17% got theirs at UCB. So if you don't get your first choice you are offered down the line your second, third and fourth choices if listed. Both UCLA and UCB averaged a gpa of 4.12-4.30 for admissions while UC San Diego was 4.00-4.27. Definitely UC San Diego was the place to go as I could have told you that. It just doesn't have the cachet of saying you went to UCLA, UC Berkeley or USC. Long story short the student profile on all nine campuses are pretty much similar given the top down admissions process. There are no more student radicals at UCB than there are at UCLA.

The only problem is where the UCB campus is located starting in 1868. It was a scrap of land called Berkeley. I'm sure pretty ordinary back then. As for Los Angeles and San Diego who even lived there besides Indians and the local Hispanic population. In fact UCLA, the second UC, didn't open until 1929. Today when it comes to defending a campus UCLA and UC San Diego have it easy. Both are difficult to access and neither one could be said to reside in the middle of a town per se. UCB does reside in the middle of a town, with dozen of entrances to campus from major to little trails between bushes. IT is a sieve. You simply cannot restrict movement of anyone who wants to cross and they do. If you want to get to the north side from the south side you cross campus as the quickest way. This goes for students, all non-students who might live in the area and then all shall I call them the denizens. On the weekends you see home owners walking their dogs on campus. The students, who are just like the students at UCLA, just want to get to their classes and then get the hell out of their in four years if possible. Even more so today given the cost which dwarfs what I paid many times over.

Oh and what Mario wanted back in 1964 was the ability to set up tables (dealing with political activities) in Sproul Plaza as the first one set up was CORE dealing with racial equality and it was taken down and Weinberg arrested. At the time the University restricted everything and even had loyalty oaths for the teaching faculty. The only tables, or fund raising allowed, was for the on campus Democratic and Republican clubs. The University eventually backed down and tables went up and stayed to this day. Kind of like Speaker's corner in London where anyone can come and talk about God knows what. Outside of People's Park and demonstrations over Vietnam the school was pretty quiet otherwise. When I started the activity centered around LA Raza yet no protests. Ironically my early girlfriend at the time was Chicana and in the group. Last I heard she was a lawyer in the Los Angeles DA office some years back.

DOR
01 May 17,, 10:08
I don't need to live on a farm to know that occasionally it smells like bullshit. Berkeley and Cal are being sued for collusion to stop conservative speakers. CAL students did block white students from the entrance to the campus. Some of the black bloc rioters were in fact Cal students.


Is there some reason why the initial "CAL students" is distinct from "white students"? Would it be because "white students" are not CAL students?

And, while you may be 100% correct that "Some of the black bloc rioters were in fact Cal students," there is also a high probability that those rioters were also ... right-handed. And, equally relevant.

Back to square one: because something happens in Berkeley doesn't mean it is endorsed by, or on behalf of, or representative of the University of California.

Doktor
01 May 17,, 18:48
How dear you comment about Berkeley from London?

GVChamp
01 May 17,, 19:03
TH,



you're right in that there's definitely changes that previous generations did not have to deal with-- but that's been a truism in the last two hundred years. the jump between horse messenger and telegraph was an enormous one, far bigger than the difference between the telegraph/phone/internet, for instance.

moreover, while there's some aspects of technology that replace basic human interactions or functions, there are others where it either enhances or augments those same interactions/functions.

taking ironduke's assertion that "people used to have intricate, well-developed mental mapping systems"-- well, no, people used to just get -lost-. :-)

so yeah, we mock "safe spaces, trigger words, and microaggressions", but on the other hand, pretty sure those hippies were more than equal to living up to the "ridiculousness" standard. or, for that matter, the oh-so-grungy Gen-Xers...:-)

trying to assert broad sociological effects from continually ongoing technological changes doesn't really work well. it's actually pretty funny to see increasing numbers of my particular generational cohort (early 1980s) go through their own get-off-my-lawn screeds (http://elitedaily.com/life/confessions-old-millennial/1399056/) as they try to differentiate themselves from younger millennials or whatever the next generation is called.

Bahhhhhh, agree and disagree. I agree because most people highlight differences that don't matter in the slightest. Your article from the older Millennial is a great example: really, you don't use snapchat? Really, you use email more? Really, you don't like Full House?

It's like saying "Gen X liked Friends, Millennials like How I Met Your Mother, they are totally different!" - Yeah, no.

I also think "technology" as a whole doesn't really shift anything. The social difference between a walk-man and an IPod is pretty trivial, IMO.

The big shifts are cultural and social institutions. Millennials have absolutely grown up with social media dictating most of their lives, in a way older generations did not. FB was fully rolled out by, what, 2004? Myspace existed before that. This woman telling me she slept with a boyband member? Yeah, I think that's a pretty big sea-change. I think those are bigger impacts on the world than Napster or AOL chatrooms.

Not sure we can hand-wave prior generations, either. Ike's generation doesn't look much like Lincoln's generation to me. My parent's generation doesn't look much like the Flapper Generation. Obviously I am not a generational expert that far back, but the tech seems to play a huge role in the differences between these generations. A lot of the behavior we're interested in, though, comes from other factors: I think Florida recounts and 9/11 and Obama plays a larger role in our current polarization than social media specifically, and newspapers could either be polarizing or moderating forces between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries.

astralis
01 May 17,, 21:31
i see multi-generational -trends-, vice trying to shoehorn one generation as THE Generation Where Everything Changed and Went to Hell.

technology influences the cultural and social institutional change, but isn't the primary driver.


think Florida recounts and 9/11 and Obama plays a larger role in our current polarization than social media specifically,

completely agree. although Bush as a negative example drove the social change much more than Obama did-- his administration, plus the Great Recession afterwards, is why Millennials tack left.

TopHatter
02 May 17,, 00:16
TH,
you're right in that there's definitely changes that previous generations did not have to deal with-- but that's been a truism in the last two hundred years. the jump between horse messenger and telegraph was an enormous one, far bigger than the difference between the telegraph/phone/internet, for instance.I'm going to go out on a limb here and quote my favorite YouTube educator's video on the effect that automation will have on jobs: "You may think we've been here before, but we haven't. This time is different".

The invention of the telegraph was yuuuge, no question about it. However it didn't put a telegraph in the pocket or on the desk top of the vast majority of grade schoolers, even those whose parents were of the most modest means....a pocket telegraph that could reach nearly every corner of the globe just as easily as it did the next town over.

This time is most definitely different.

zraver
02 May 17,, 01:16
Is there some reason why the initial "CAL students" is distinct from "white students"? Would it be because "white students" are not CAL students?

And, while you may be 100% correct that "Some of the black bloc rioters were in fact Cal students," there is also a high probability that those rioters were also ... right-handed. And, equally relevant.

Back to square one: because something happens in Berkeley doesn't mean it is endorsed by, or on behalf of, or representative of the University of California.

Yeah there is a reason, I forgot to start the sentence with the word minority.

Black Bloc members also being students at Cal means a lot more than handedness. Lefthanders are not trying to force righthanders out of public spaces or censor them. Black Bloc members and/or leftist CAL students are using violence to craft a political narrative.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/video-uc-berkeley-protesters-built-a-hum

zraver
02 May 17,, 01:23
I'm going to go out on a limb here and quote my favorite YouTube educator's video on the effect that automation will have on jobs: "You may think we've been here before, but we haven't. This time is different".

The invention of the telegraph was yuuuge, no question about it. However it didn't put a telegraph in the pocket or on the desk top of the vast majority of grade schoolers, even those whose parents were of the most modest means....a pocket telegraph that could reach nearly every corner of the globe just as easily as it did the next town over.

This time is most definitely different.

The Smart Phone is up there with mastery of fire, domestication of the dog, cultivation and written language as true turning point events.

Ironduke
02 May 17,, 07:08
Bahhhhhh, agree and disagree. I agree because most people highlight differences that don't matter in the slightest. Your article from the older Millennial is a great example: really, you don't use snapchat? Really, you use email more? Really, you don't like Full House?

It's like saying "Gen X liked Friends, Millennials like How I Met Your Mother, they are totally different!" - Yeah, no.

I also think "technology" as a whole doesn't really shift anything. The social difference between a walk-man and an IPod is pretty trivial, IMO.

The big shifts are cultural and social institutions. Millennials have absolutely grown up with social media dictating most of their lives, in a way older generations did not. FB was fully rolled out by, what, 2004? Myspace existed before that. This woman telling me she slept with a boyband member? Yeah, I think that's a pretty big sea-change. I think those are bigger impacts on the world than Napster or AOL chatrooms.

Not sure we can hand-wave prior generations, either. Ike's generation doesn't look much like Lincoln's generation to me. My parent's generation doesn't look much like the Flapper Generation. Obviously I am not a generational expert that far back, but the tech seems to play a huge role in the differences between these generations. A lot of the behavior we're interested in, though, comes from other factors: I think Florida recounts and 9/11 and Obama plays a larger role in our current polarization than social media specifically, and newspapers could either be polarizing or moderating forces between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries.
That's a strawman you've put up there. It's a mischaracterization of what I said.

The brain is incredibly plastic. It will contract or expand areas depending on the degree to which they are used. It's the most energy-intensive organ in the body, and it strives toward efficiency depending on the needs of the individual in question. The taxicab driver who has never used GPS has an area of the brain that may be 10-20x larger and more developed due to the fact that they drive cabs for 1/3 to 1/2 of their waking hours. The brain needs this capability, so it creates it, as the livelihood and well-being of the taxicab driver absolutely depends on it, and the taxicab driver's brain responds accordingly to give him the mental tools to do his job. It is not simply rote memorization - it is a fundamental biological adaptation taking place on a granular, individual level within a single lifetime.

Likewise with GPS telling people how to get everywhere - mental mapping no longer occurs except on the most basic, rudimentary level - everything is a blur and the only thing that really exists to a driver following GPS is the starting point and the destination. The GPS is in effect automating the process - the human mind no longer needs to remember landmarks, directions, landscapes, or anything else. If a human is completely reliant on GPS - the brain doesn't develop much capability to mentally map the territory the person is traveling through. Enough studies have been done to prove that this area of the brain is many times larger in a taxicab driver - which proves plasticity within a single lifetime, that is not dependent on genetics.

When dogs replaced humans in several different areas - humans no longer needed certain abilities as dogs had were already far superior to the human. Isolated populations of people who have never had dogs have far closer to the archaic human's sense of smell than modern humans do. Sense of smell being considered by evolutionary biologists to be one of them. Modern human are thought to have only 5-10% of the ability of archaic Homo Sapiens. Neil deGrasse Tyson made a point about this in the new Cosmos, along with many others who are esteemed experts in their fields, and he and they often have a pretty good idea what they're talking about. The smell capacity of humans likely also regressed due to increasing safety in food supply - a good sense of smell was absolutely vital in helping humans to determine which foods were safe to eat, and which would kill you.

There are hundreds of other areas these changes are likely occurring it - and the faster technology develops, I believe this causes more rapid, stranger, and bizarre changes in the human mind, and that we have yet to fully consider the implications. The sense of smell and mental mapping of environment are just two examples for which there is a large amount of physical evidence for. There are other changes for which there are evidence of, and other changes, and it has not yet occurred to anybody what these changes might even be, and they are yet undetected.

This effect is observed in reverse when previously domesticated animals become feral and wild once more - old instincts and capabilities return. The southern razorback established itself as a wild species with archaic boar instincts and capabilities not seen in the domesticated pigs they descend from. Thousands of years of domestication with the accompanying changes were lost in just a few generations when several pigs managed to escape, and somehow survive outside of a domesticated environment. So, these changes can also happen in reverse. Humans could theoretically regress to archaic Homo Sapiens mental capabilities/lack of capabilities if the circumstances were to exist.

The question is - with the technological development of mankind these last 100 centuries, and the ever-increasing rate at which it is occurring - what other areas and abilities are being lost wholesale among entire populations? Is it a good thing or a bad thing? I think the evidence is convincing enough - it is happening.

Talking about Walkmans and iPods - the timeline might seem like an eternity to you, and it may even seem somehow cogent and relevant counterpoint, but it is neither.

tbm3fan
02 May 17,, 08:27
Yeah there is a reason, I forgot to start the sentence with the word minority.

Black Bloc members also being students at Cal means a lot more than handedness. Lefthanders are not trying to force righthanders out of public spaces or censor them. Black Bloc members and/or leftist CAL students are using violence to craft a political narrative.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/video-uc-berkeley-protesters-built-a-hum

Obviously you are going to believe whatever you want to believe irrespective of solid facts. That's ok as I am sure some people believe the world is still flat you will always believe UCB is a leftist den.

I don't care as I am talking to the other thousand people who read this every day. If UCB is a leftist den then so is UCLA, UCSD, UCR, UCI, UCM, UCSB, UCSC, UCD and UCSF as they all share the exact same applicant (gene) pool as decided by the Regents. On the other hand if those eight aren't leftists dens then conversely neither is UCB.

One final note about this whole event. Our long time local investigative reporter learned that the people on the right wearing their helmets, who came to support Coulter, Trump or whoever, were actually bused in from as far south as Fresno and north from Eureka. Doesn't sound so spontaneous to me. Yet what do I know as I have only lived in the area for 45 years and must be blind compared to you.

Oh, and looking at some of those May Day pictures with the anarchists dressed in black, around the world, really brought home the fact that UCB students are an incredibly mobile group. During finals no less. Damn!

Parihaka
02 May 17,, 09:44
Our long time local investigative reporter learned that the people on the right wearing their helmets, who came to support Coulter, Trump or whoever, were actually bused in from as far south as Fresno and north from Eureka. Doesn't sound so spontaneous to me.
You need a new reporter. The plan for conservatives to mass was discussed for weeks across new media, as it was felt the mass assaults on conservatives during Milo Yianopolis' visit hadn't been properly addressed by your local constabulary. In other words your local reporter was reporting something that was openly reported for weeks prior.

DOR
02 May 17,, 10:05
How dear you comment about Berkeley from London?

How many years did you live in Berkeley?

DOR
02 May 17,, 10:10
Yeah there is a reason, I forgot to start the sentence with the word minority.

Black Bloc members also being students at Cal means a lot more than handedness. Lefthanders are not trying to force righthanders out of public spaces or censor them. Black Bloc members and/or leftist CAL students are using violence to craft a political narrative.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/video-uc-berkeley-protesters-built-a-hum

I am in awe of anyone who can tell the difference between a Cal student walking down the street or throwing rocks, and anyone else doing the same thing..
Just like my niece was, and my dad, and my two uncles, and of course Grandma.
Bears one and all.
And, we are all in awe of your insights.

Doktor
02 May 17,, 10:40
How many years did you live in Berkeley?

When was the last time you where there? Jeez...

Wooglin
02 May 17,, 15:28
Dear Berkeley: Even Ann Coulter deserves free speech


Are we living in an alternate reality, one in which Bill Maher and Bernie Sanders are sticking up for Ann Coulter?

What could have caused this rip in the space-time continuum? The so-called birthplace of the free speech movement, the University of California at Berkeley, has once again engaged in liberal censorship, this time of Ann Coulter, using the fear of violence as cover to suppress a voice it did not like.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter was invited to speak at UC Berkeley by the Berkeley College Republicans. Given recent violence against conservative speakers in Berkeley, the college cancelled the speech. Coulter, to her credit, offered suggestions as to how to better deal with any problems -- to expel any students engaging in violence or trying to stop the speech from happening. That solution apparently was not good enough for UC Berkeley, which instead decided to reschedule the talk, but on a date when there would be no students on campus.

I despise Ann Coulter. But, with everything I hold dear as an American, I also believe in what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote: "[T]he ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution."

Berkeley should be the epicenter of the marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately, it has become the most intolerant place in America. I would feel more comfortable preaching for Sharia law in rural Mississippi than I would feel challenging the wage gap theory or speaking out against anti-Asian discrimination in admissions at Berkeley. In Mississippi, I would likely be ignored. Jeered at worst. In Berkeley, if you do not adhere to the Leftist orthodoxy, your speech is branded "hate speech," and out come the shock troops to physically attack you or anyone who wants to listen to you.

continued... http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/opinions/ann-coulter-berkeley-free-speech-randazza-opinion/

DOR
03 May 17,, 14:04
When was the last time you where there? Jeez...

Christmas, 2016.

And, you?

Wooglin
03 May 17,, 16:00
Well he's got you there Doktor. He visited in 2016 so he's an expert on the local scene and you're not allowed to comment. But when it's more convenient in an argument to distance himself from Berkeley the tune changes...

Mod Edit: Please refrain from making fake quotes from members, for whatever reason.

Say anything to be right. No interest in honest discourse. At least they're consistent.

Wooglin
03 May 17,, 16:10
What is the Law on Campus Free Speech and What Should Berkeley—and all Universities—Do to Protect It?


While the thuggish and grotesque riot that forced the cancellation of the January appearance at Berkeley of conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was inspired largely, but not exclusively, by students, the University’s craven administrators were certainly complicit in the exclusion of conservative views from campus. They were also instrumental in causing the cancellation of a scheduled appearance by conservative author David Horowitz earlier in April, and, as documents leaked as part of the current lawsuit over the Coulter affair reveal, administrators intentionally created a Byzantine system to help prevent any conservative voices from having a platform at Berkeley.

As the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Young America’s Foundation and Berkeley College Republicans, the groups that invited Coulter in the first place, observed, the Berkeley administration had concocted an unconstitutional policy to govern whether or not permission would be granted for controversial (read: conservative) speakers, the so-called High-Profile Speaker Policy. “It appears that the true aim of the High-Profile Speaker Policy,” the complaint asserts, “is to make it as difficult as possible for a disfavored speaker to hold a successful event at UC Berkeley.”

As they did with David Horowitz, and in behavior they repeated with Ann Coulter, administrators violated the content-neutrality requirement for free speech, instead penalizing groups that invite conservative speakers with onerous time, place, and manner restrictions, as well as arbitrary and onerous “security” fees that effectively served as a speech tax on certain, unwelcome speech.

The Plaintiffs contend that Berkeley administrators “selectively impose their unwritten, unpublished High-Profile Speaker Policy based on their subjective beliefs that the anticipated content of the speaker’s speech is likely to spark ‘public outrage,’ . . . thereby triggering ‘security’ concerns and leading to the need to restrict the speaker to a ‘securable” facility and time of speaking.’ For the Horowitz event, for example, just six days before the scheduled appearance, the administration demanded that the sponsoring student group suddenly pay a security fee of $5,788, something that made it impossible for the speech to be held.

Of course, the security fee practice serves as a perverse incentive for those who wish to disrupt or have canceled events by conservatives, since threats of protests and disruptions prior to the event can necessitate the security fees and, often, the eventual cancellation of the event as a result of this penalty—the so-called ‘heckler’s veto.’ If there are legitimate security concerns over potential reactions by protestors to the speaker’s words, that is an issue that can addressed through law enforcement, suspensions, or other appropriate punishment for offenders. But the prospect for violence—on the part of the listeners—is not sufficient cause to suppress the First Amendment rights of the speaker.

The security fee unconstitutionally punishes the speaker for the real or imagined future behavior of his or her audience, and when the university—a public actor—invokes the security claim based on a conservative speaker’s controversiality for liberal audiences, it “offends the First Amendment when it imposes financial burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression,” the Supreme Court found in 1992 in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement. Moreover, even the determination that a Yiannopoulos, Horowitz, or Coulter appearance is likely to provoke a violent reaction—based on their previously articulated views—is itself violative of the First Amendment, since the Court also noted that “[l]isteners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation . . . Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

full article: http://www.educationviews.org/law-campus-free-speech-berkeley-and-universities-do-protect-it/

TopHatter
03 May 17,, 18:35
Please keep things on subject and refrain from attacking another poster's honesty. Calling someone a liar is a very big line to cross.

Wooglin
03 May 17,, 19:27
Well he's got you there Doktor. He visited in 2016 so he's an expert on the local scene and you're not allowed to comment. But when it's more convenient in an argument to distance himself from Berkeley the tune changes...

Mod Edit: Please refrain from making fake quotes from members, for whatever reason.

Say anything to be right. No interest in honest discourse. At least they're consistent.

Excuse me, fake quote?!?! That's a direct quote from here...

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=64022&page=49&p=1024180&viewfull=1#post1024180

TopHatter
03 May 17,, 21:02
Excuse me, fake quote?!?! That's a direct quote from here...

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=64022&page=49&p=1024180&viewfull=1#post1024180

My mistake, I apologize. I didn't see the usual link back and jumped to a conclusion



https://youtu.be/42WNHGr1jGI

TopHatter
04 May 17,, 18:20
However it didn't put a telegraph in the pocket or on the desk top of the vast majority of grade schoolers, even those whose parents were of the most modest means....a pocket telegraph that could reach nearly every corner of the globe just as easily as it did the next town over.

This time is most definitely different.

This is of course just one study, but it's emblematic of "This time is different". Make of it what you will.
______________________

Tablets and smartphones damage toddlers' speech development
By Sarah Knapton

Putting babies in front of iPads before the age of two stunts speech development, a new study suggests.

In Britain children under the age of three spend an average of 44 minutes a day using smartphones and tablets but it is the first time researchers have shown it can impact language skills. (In the United States, a 2015 study showed 92.2 percent of 1-year-olds had already used a mobile device and a majority of 2-year-olds use them on a daily basis.)

Researchers from the University of Toronto and The Hospital For Sick Children in Toronto found that every 30 minutes of screen time increased the risk of delayed speech by 49 percent.

By the age of two to three, infants should be able to communicate in sentences of between three and four words. But those who spent the most time on handheld devices were found to struggle with communication skills.

Although guidelines exist for screen time, many parents do not realise that it also applies to handheld devices, the authors warn.

"Handheld devices are everywhere these days," said Dr. Catherine Birken, staff pediatrician at The Hospital for Sick Children.

"While new pediatric guidelines suggest limiting screen time for babies and toddlers, we believe that the use of smartphones and tablets with young children has become quite common."

“This is the first study to report an association between handheld screen time and increased risk of expressive language delay."

Every extra 30 minutes of screen times was associated with an increased risk of speech delay

The study involved nearly 900 children aged between six months and two years and was presented at 2017 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting in San Francisco.

Dr. Birken said all screen media should be discouraged in children younger than 18 months.

A recent study by University College London found that screen time can also impact the sleep of infants, and possibly harm brain development.

The British study found that every hour infants spent on such devices was linked to a 16 minutes less sleep. Sleep is important for the development of the brain, especially during the first few years of life, when “neural plasticity” is at its greatest.

The researchers believe that blue light from screens can affect the bodyclock, disrupting circadian rhythms while the stimulation caused by the content of the games or programmes can cause psychological and physiological arousal. Link (https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/tablets-smartphones-damage-toddlers-apos-145432084.html)

tbm3fan
05 May 17,, 03:05
This is of course just one study, but it's emblematic of "This time is different". Make of it what you will.
______________________

Tablets and smartphones damage toddlers' speech development
By Sarah Knapton

Putting babies in front of iPads before the age of two stunts speech development, a new study suggests.

In Britain children under the age of three spend an average of 44 minutes a day using smartphones and tablets but it is the first time researchers have shown it can impact language skills. (In the United States, a 2015 study showed 92.2 percent of 1-year-olds had already used a mobile device and a majority of 2-year-olds use them on a daily basis.)

Researchers from the University of Toronto and The Hospital For Sick Children in Toronto found that every 30 minutes of screen time increased the risk of delayed speech by 49 percent.

By the age of two to three, infants should be able to communicate in sentences of between three and four words. But those who spent the most time on handheld devices were found to struggle with communication skills.

Although guidelines exist for screen time, many parents do not realise that it also applies to handheld devices, the authors warn.

"Handheld devices are everywhere these days," said Dr. Catherine Birken, staff pediatrician at The Hospital for Sick Children.

"While new pediatric guidelines suggest limiting screen time for babies and toddlers, we believe that the use of smartphones and tablets with young children has become quite common."

“This is the first study to report an association between handheld screen time and increased risk of expressive language delay."

Every extra 30 minutes of screen times was associated with an increased risk of speech delay

The study involved nearly 900 children aged between six months and two years and was presented at 2017 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting in San Francisco.

Dr. Birken said all screen media should be discouraged in children younger than 18 months.

A recent study by University College London found that screen time can also impact the sleep of infants, and possibly harm brain development.

The British study found that every hour infants spent on such devices was linked to a 16 minutes less sleep. Sleep is important for the development of the brain, especially during the first few years of life, when “neural plasticity” is at its greatest.

The researchers believe that blue light from screens can affect the bodyclock, disrupting circadian rhythms while the stimulation caused by the content of the games or programmes can cause psychological and physiological arousal. Link (https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/tablets-smartphones-damage-toddlers-apos-145432084.html)

Should this not be in another thread. Not that it isn't important because it is and it isn't the whole of it. What starts happening with ocular function in the teens now resembles symptoms I am used to seeing in far older adults.

The blue light issue can affect anyone but worse for toddlers.

tbm3fan
05 May 17,, 03:06
Excuse me, fake quote?!?! That's a direct quote from here...

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=64022&page=49&p=1024180&viewfull=1#post1024180

Crap article in the first paragraph and there was no need to read further.

Wooglin
05 May 17,, 06:51
Crap article in the first paragraph and there was no need to read further.

In other words...

43802

Wooglin
05 May 17,, 06:52
So true...


College campuses still appear superficially to be quiet, well-landscaped refuges from the bustle of real life.

But increasingly, their spires, quads and ivy-covered walls are facades. They are now no more about free inquiry and unfettered learning than were the proverbial Potemkin fake buildings put up to convince the traveling Russian czarina Catherine the Great that her impoverished provinces were prosperous.

The university faces crises almost everywhere of student debt, university finances, free expression, and the very quality and value of a university education.

Take free speech. Without freedom of expression, there can be no university.

But if the recent examples at Berkeley, Claremont, Middlebury and Yale are any indication, there is nothing much left to the idea of a free and civilized exchange of different ideas.

At most universities, if a scheduled campus lecturer expressed scholarly doubt about the severity of man-caused global warming and the efficacy of its government remedies, or questioned the strategies of the Black Lives Matter movement, or suggested that sex is biologically determined rather than socially constructed, she likely would either be disinvited or have her speech physically disrupted. Campuses often now mimic the political street violence of the late Roman Republic.

Campus radicals have achieved what nuclear strategists call deterrence: Faculty and students now know precisely which speech will endanger their careers and which will earn them rewards.

The terrified campus community makes the necessary adjustments. As with the German universities of the 1930s, faculty keep quiet or offer politically correct speech through euphemisms. Toadies thrive; mavericks are hounded.

Shortchanged students collectively owe more than $1 trillion in federal student-loan debt — a sum that cannot be paid back by ill-prepared and often unemployed graduates.

Test scores have plummeted. Too many college students were never taught the basic referents of liberal education. Most supposedly aware, hip and politically engaged students can’t identify the Battle of Gettysburg or the Parthenon, or explain the idea of compounded interest.

Many students simply cannot do the work that was routinely assigned in the past. In response, as proverbially delicate “snowflakes,” they insist that they are traumatized and can only find remedy in laxer standards, gut courses and faculty deference.

“Studies” activist courses too often are therapeutic. They are neither inductive nor Socratic, and they rarely teach facts, methods and means of learning without insisting on predesignated conclusions. Instead, the student should leave the class with proper group-think and ideological race/class/gender fervor of the professor — a supposed new recruit for the larger progressive project.

Universities talk loudly of exploitation in America — in the abstract. But to address societal inequality, university communities need only look at how their own campuses operate. Part-time faculty with Ph.D.s are paid far less than tenured full professors for often teaching the same classes — and thus subsidize top-heavy administrations.

Graduate teaching assistantships, internships and mentorships are designed to use inexpensive or free labor under the protocols of the medieval guild.

One reason that tuition is sky-high is because behind the facade of “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces” and “culture appropriation” are costly legions of deputy associate provosts, special assistants to the dean, and race/class/gender “senior strategists” and facilitators (usually former faculty who no longer teach).

Few admit that a vastly expanding and politically correct administrative industry reflects a massive shift of resources away from physics, humanities or biology — precisely the courses that nontraditional students need to become competitive.

One of the great mysteries of American life is nontransparent university admissions. No one knows quite how alumni legacies, deference to college athletics, or poorly defined affirmative action and haphazard diversity criteria actually operate.

At the California State University system — the nation’s largest — nearly 40 percent of incoming students need remediation in math and English after failing basic competency tests. Universities are now scrambling to offer university credit for what are in truth remedial high school courses, apparently to prevent eager (but entirely unprepared) students from hurt feelings when they butt up against the reality of college classes.

Careerist university administrators more often make the university change to accommodate the student rather than asking the incoming student to prepare to accommodate the time-honored university.

The results are watered-down classes, grade inflation — and student frustration and anger upon learning that entering college is not quite the same as graduating from college.

The way to ensure student confidence and self-reliance is not through identity-politics courses that emphasize racial, sexual and religious fault lines. Instead, only classes ensuring that students are well trained in writing, speaking, computing and inductive thinking will give assuredness of achievement — and, with it, self-confidence.

Apart from the sciences and the professional schools, campuses are a bubble of unearned self-congratulation — clueless that they have broken faith with a once-noble legacy of free inquiry and have lost the respect of most Americans.

The now melodramatic university has become a classical tragedy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-free-speech-liberal-colleges-campuses-20170504-story.html

tbm3fan
05 May 17,, 08:49
In other words...

43802

So that is you? A selfie, huh. You know I have never taken one personally. What kind of camera?

Me, authors have agendas and AGENDAS. Research articles are independent and/or are sponsored by a firm. I discount those sponsored by firms and I discount those with AGENDAS from either side unlike you. This author had an AGENDA in the first few lines that screamed out into one's face. Of course you wouldn't understand as you apparently never listen from looking at your picture.

tbm3fan
05 May 17,, 09:00
So true...



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-free-speech-liberal-colleges-campuses-20170504-story.html

That is absolutely hilarious. I don't think there has been an honest to God campus radical at U.C. Berkeley since the 70's. Certainly none there from 1977-81 that is for sure. Snowflakes who can't do the work yet have beyond an entering gpa beyond 4.0. I do believe someone is jealous. There certainly isn't the room here for me to name every single student, who I personally know, who went there and who are all pursuing advance degrees in physics, chemistry, genetics and engineering to name a few. I leave out those who went into finance and international affairs who were truly and exceptionally talented. This author harbors some hidden issues about their own education.

Parihaka
05 May 17,, 11:02
Crap article in the first paragraph and there was no need to read further.

I don't understand. The link leads to a DOR post (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=64022&page=49&p=1024180&viewfull=1#post1024180), not an article?

Wooglin
05 May 17,, 15:02
So that is you? A selfie, huh. You know I have never taken one personally. What kind of camera?

Me, authors have agendas and AGENDAS. Research articles are independent and/or are sponsored by a firm. I discount those sponsored by firms and I discount those with AGENDAS from either side unlike you. This author had an AGENDA in the first few lines that screamed out into one's face. Of course you wouldn't understand as you apparently never listen from looking at your picture.

You discount anything that doesn't support your worldview. We already know this, and I couldn't care less what you think about it, or what excuses you find to discount it. There's no hope for honest discussion with you, so cry to someone who cares.

Wooglin
05 May 17,, 15:53
TRIGGER WARNING: TRIGGER WARNING: Article contains arguments and opinions you may disagree with, which can cause some extreme emotional distress! Safe space is available here (http://www.dailykos.com/) for the more reactive snowflakes amongst you.

Liberals' free-speech amnesia


This is a moment of extreme hyperbole in America, with words like "fascism" and "Russian coup" mixing in seamlessly in our superlative-heavy political discourse with "creeping sharia" and "Mexican invasion." But perhaps no phrase is deployed as recklessly as "hate speech," a nebulous non-legal term of which there is no agreed-upon definition.

While neither red nor blue America has a monopoly on trying to use the force of government or the violence of the citizenry to silence its opponents, the idea that the most vulnerable among us can be protected from the wounds of "hate speech" through loopholes in the First Amendment has been gaining disquieting momentum among liberal thinkers who should really know better.

Howard Dean recently demonstrated his mangled misunderstanding of Supreme Court jurisprudence when he followed up a widely mocked tweet asserting hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment with later tweets and media appearances in which he repeatedly cited a Supreme Court decision that deemed certain speech to constitute "fighting words." The physician and former DNC chair was arguing that conservative gadfly Ann Coulter's well-worn shtick constitutes both "hate speech" and "fighting words," and is therefore not constitutionally protected.

That is simply nonsense.

"Hate speech" as a legal concept does not exist, which is a good thing, because hate is subjective and anything from the most vile forms of bigotry to opposition to abortion to support for gay rights to criticism of religious institutions have all been deemed beyond the pale of public discourse by various groups and individuals. Offensiveness lies in the eye of the beholder. Thankfully, the right to express offensive ideas persists.

To be clear, there are jerks out there who have no desire to engage in good faith debating and who profit off of deliberately causing offense, the receipt of which only makes them more popular with their audiences. They promote noxious ideas and stand on "free speech" the way a child would claim to be standing on "base" in a backyard game of tag. Coulter is one of these jerks, and one only needs to recall the outrage she helped stoke over a Muslim community center opening a few blocks from the World Trade Center back in 2010 to be aware of how little she truly values free speech, freedom of religion, and private property rights when she and her comrades demanded the "Ground Zero mosque" be stopped.

These characters might not "deserve" free speech, but they are entitled to it. Rights are not earned by the righteousness of one's values. They're just rights. And the right to freedom of expression is the tool that cultivated the fight to win every civil right in this country's history. There is no civil rights movement, no gay rights movement, no feminist movement, and no anti-war movement without broad free speech protections for unpopular expression.

The good isn't safe unless the bad is, too.

Considering the former governor of Vermont made his name on the national stage as the most strident anti-war candidate of the 2004 presidential campaign, it's particularly ironic that Howard Dean would cite Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, a case centering around a Jehovah's Witness named Walter Chaplinsky who had been passing out anti-WWII materials, attracted a hostile crowd, and then was arrested after a town marshal deemed him to be the cause of the unrest. What "fighting words" did Chaplinsky utter? He called the marshal "a damned fascist."

Never mind the details of the case or how many anti-war protesters have used that other "f word" to describe any number of people both in and out of government. Dean's citing of Chaplinsky ignores the history of the Supreme Court repeatedly clarifying and narrowing the definition of "fighting words," as well as the fact that the Court has never cited the case as a precedent to curtail freedom of speech. In fact, some legal scholars even consider the fighting words exception to be for all intents and purposes a pile of dead letters, if not explicitly overturned by the Court.

Though Dean would like to believe Coulter's tasteless musing about wishing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh had instead targeted The New York Times is unprotected speech, it is. Like a great deal of Coulter's output, it is mean-spirited and — if intended as a joke — of miniscule satirical value. But the right to speech does not require a value test. And yet, a value test is exactly what was advocated in The New York Times recently by NYU vice provost and professor Ulrich Baer:


The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. [The New York Times]

This appears to be a wish-fulfillment fantasy on the part of Baer, because the freedom of speech requires no "balance" or "obligation to ensure" anything, primarily because someone would have to determine when sufficient "balance" had been achieved. Who does Baer think should be the arbiters of such balance? Why, right-thinking administrators like himself, who breathlessly determine that "there is no inherent value to be gained from debating" certain ideas in public.

Australian professor Robert Simpson, in a recent article at Quartz, also advocated for benevolent authority figures separating "good speech" from "bad speech." After cursory nods to the value of the right to free expression unencumbered by government interference or violent mobs ("Free speech is important … However, once we extrapolate beyond the clear-cut cases, the question of what counts as free speech gets rather tricky"), Simpson argues for putting "free 'speech' as such to one side, and replace it with a series of more narrowly targeted expressive liberties."

Like Baer and Dean, Simpson assumes that those in power will always be as right-thinking as he, and that if the price of squashing the Ann Coulters of the world is abandoning the principle of universal free speech so long as it doesn't rise to direct threats or incitement to violence, well, that's a price they're willing to pay.

Erstwhile anti-war presidential candidates and distinguished professors should know better than to put their faith in authority when it comes to the competition of ideas. That they don't shows how little faith they have in the ability of the "good" to beat the "bad." Call me a hopeless optimist, but the value of robust free speech — especially the right to offend — has helped to facilitate the changing of minds regarding civil rights and has helped end or stop wars. That's why free speech, and not well-meaning censorship, will continue to be perhaps our greatest bulwark to tyranny.

This country has seen bigger threats to the republic than Ann Coulter and her ilk, and we should resist the urge to use state power or approvingly wink at masked, firework-wielding LARPers from creating "security threats" that prevent her from plugging a book to a few dozen young Republicans and a few hundred protesters on a college campus.

http://theweek.com/articles/694398/liberals-freespeech-amnesia

tbm3fan
05 May 17,, 23:18
You discount anything that doesn't support your worldview. We already know this, and I couldn't care less what you think about it, or what excuses you find to discount it. There's no hope for honest discussion with you, so cry to someone who cares.

Pray tell what is my world view according to you? I don't believe I have ever expressed it here. What does your imagination say? I'm very curious since I read neither articles from the right or left which you knew already. Fact is you cannot have a discussion with anyone who is even centrist which is no surprise as I have heard the same comments from some on the left. That is good as pissing off both sides is what I like best and places me away from the two maddening crowds.

How about those Warriors!

Wooglin
08 May 17,, 06:56
Which part of


cry to someone who cares.

...did you not quite understand?

TopHatter
08 May 17,, 18:24
This discussion appears to have hit a brick wall and is going nowhere fast. Thread Locked.