Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
Quote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
I would say any large, dense urban area is a "cauldron" for such behavior, but there's nothing the school can do about where it's located.OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not want to have a rational discussion.OdontoBear66 said:I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
Quote:
"If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they've got to allow people like Hayden and many great young people, and old people, to speak," Trump said, bringing onstage a young conservative, Hayden Williams...
The executive order, Trump said, would "require colleges to support free speech if they want federal research" money. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
.jpg)
So just to be clear. Two non-Cal people got into a fight on Cal's campus resulting in one person hitting the other person. In response, Cal's police department have arrested the attacking person and submitted their information to the DA's office for potential prosecution. In other words, the system worked just as you would expect it to.MSaviolives said:
Breaking news: The alleged assailant has been arrested
Article about arrest
OdontoBear66 said:I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
OdontoBear66 said:
So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.
Yogi Bear said:You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not want to have a rational discussion.OdontoBear66 said:I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
sycasey said:
Some further info about the attacker:
https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/zachary-greenberg/
Looks like he was once employed by UC Berkeley, for about two months back in 2010, and was "briefly a non degree seeking student." Not clear when or for how long. It doesn't seem like he has any current affiliation with the school.
You have failed to support this quote:01Bear said:Yogi Bear said:You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not want to have a rational discussion.OdontoBear66 said:I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
Yogi, I hope you're not suggesting I don't want to have a rational discussion. If anything, I also pointed out out that neither of the participants is a Cal student, in response to the lies perpetuated by the right-wing media and its guzzlers. I'm basing my comments on facts, not fiction.
Yogi Bear said:You have failed to support this quote:01Bear said:Yogi Bear said:You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not want to have a rational discussion.OdontoBear66 said:I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
Yogi, I hope you're not suggesting I don't want to have a rational discussion. If anything, I also pointed out out that neither of the participants is a Cal student, in response to the lies perpetuated by the right-wing media and its guzzlers. I'm basing my comments on facts, not fiction.
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
OdontoBear66 said:
So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior.
I believe in that video, the attacker (Greenberg) calls Williams a "racist" and says he's "inciting violence," or something along those lines. That means it was probably him taking objection to the guy's politics.golden sloth said:
Random Question: Has it ever been confirmed that the argument was even about politics? It seems to be an assumption everyone is making based on the original twitter video, but could have also been about someone videotaping someone else without their permission.
I'll say this about that comment: I also had a thought that it might be an attempt at mocking my comment, but I couldn't really be sure. It's a bit vague. So rather than take offense, I chose to just expand upon the idea of Cal's culpability as a "cauldron," regardless of what he meant (I don't think the school is really culpable for this at all, and the "cauldron" effect is just a product of the school's location).01Bear said:Yogi Bear said:You have failed to support this quote:01Bear said:Yogi Bear said:You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not want to have a rational discussion.OdontoBear66 said:I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
Yogi, I hope you're not suggesting I don't want to have a rational discussion. If anything, I also pointed out out that neither of the participants is a Cal student, in response to the lies perpetuated by the right-wing media and its guzzlers. I'm basing my comments on facts, not fiction.
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
Fair enough. I read the following portion of OdontoBear66's commentOdontoBear66 said:
So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior.
as mocking sycasey.
If I'm being frank here, I think I conflated my confusion with your post by also confusing you with another poster. Probably oski003 as I scan through the boards. So I think as much as anything, I assumed you believed something that you don't and that's my error.01Bear said:Yogi Bear said:You have failed to support this quote:01Bear said:Yogi Bear said:You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not want to have a rational discussion.OdontoBear66 said:
I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
Yogi, I hope you're not suggesting I don't want to have a rational discussion. If anything, I also pointed out out that neither of the participants is a Cal student, in response to the lies perpetuated by the right-wing media and its guzzlers. I'm basing my comments on facts, not fiction.
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
Fair enough. I read the following portion of OdontoBear66's commentOdontoBear66 said:
So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior.
as mocking sycasey.
The first sentence "So ain't that great." seemed to be written satirically, and not to be taken at face value. While I admit that I may have misinterpreted his intent, given that it was in response to sycasey's pointing out that the actual facts of the case were inconsistent with the lies being perpetuated and on which arguments were being based, it would seem that my interpretation was likely accurate. That is, OdontoBear66 is attempting to mock sycasey for pointing out actual facts.
This interpretation was further supported by the next sentence, where he states "Absolved of guilt." in what appears to be an attempt to smear Cal by suggesting that despite the fact that neither participant was affiliated with the university, it was still somehow liable for the attack. Given that neither party was a Cal student nor in any way affiliated with Cal, which was the point of sycasey's previous statement, it would appear that OdontoBear66 is dismissing the facts and logic, instead (at best) he argues from emotion by insinuating Cal is trying to wipe away its guilt, without first establishing that Cal is guilty, let alone of what Cal is guilty. Again, OdontoBear66 has established that the facts in this case are irrelevant in his mind.
His next sentence, in which he labels Cal a cauldron for potential attacks cemented his tone as being dismissive of facts and ridiculing anyone who attempted to discuss the attack as one based on them. He never provides any evidence or support on which to base the statement. Instead he insists that Cal must be a violent place where personal violence is all but bound to happen.
Taken together, I read OdontoBear66's tone in the comment as mocking toward sycasey for sticking to the facts. Maybe you read things differently. If so, I welcome your thoughts as to how his comment should have been read.
Yogi Bear said:If I'm being frank here, I think I conflated my confusion with your post by also confusing you with another poster. Probably oski003 as I scan through the boards. So I think as much as anything, I assumed you believed something that you don't and that's my error.01Bear said:Yogi Bear said:You have failed to support this quote:01Bear said:Yogi Bear said:You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not want to have a rational discussion.OdontoBear66 said:
I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
Yogi, I hope you're not suggesting I don't want to have a rational discussion. If anything, I also pointed out out that neither of the participants is a Cal student, in response to the lies perpetuated by the right-wing media and its guzzlers. I'm basing my comments on facts, not fiction.
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
Fair enough. I read the following portion of OdontoBear66's commentOdontoBear66 said:
So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior.
as mocking sycasey.
The first sentence "So ain't that great." seemed to be written satirically, and not to be taken at face value. While I admit that I may have misinterpreted his intent, given that it was in response to sycasey's pointing out that the actual facts of the case were inconsistent with the lies being perpetuated and on which arguments were being based, it would seem that my interpretation was likely accurate. That is, OdontoBear66 is attempting to mock sycasey for pointing out actual facts.
This interpretation was further supported by the next sentence, where he states "Absolved of guilt." in what appears to be an attempt to smear Cal by suggesting that despite the fact that neither participant was affiliated with the university, it was still somehow liable for the attack. Given that neither party was a Cal student nor in any way affiliated with Cal, which was the point of sycasey's previous statement, it would appear that OdontoBear66 is dismissing the facts and logic, instead (at best) he argues from emotion by insinuating Cal is trying to wipe away its guilt, without first establishing that Cal is guilty, let alone of what Cal is guilty. Again, OdontoBear66 has established that the facts in this case are irrelevant in his mind.
His next sentence, in which he labels Cal a cauldron for potential attacks cemented his tone as being dismissive of facts and ridiculing anyone who attempted to discuss the attack as one based on them. He never provides any evidence or support on which to base the statement. Instead he insists that Cal must be a violent place where personal violence is all but bound to happen.
Taken together, I read OdontoBear66's tone in the comment as mocking toward sycasey for sticking to the facts. Maybe you read things differently. If so, I welcome your thoughts as to how his comment should have been read.
Wow. What you choose to read from what I write, knowing my intent, let us just say we shall agree to disagree.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
Ummm, this is the comment to which i was replying:OdontoBear66 said:
So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.
It does not contain any mention of having a discussion. Rather, it seems to shut down the suggestion that the discussion be based on facts, since it mocked another poster's comment in which it was pointed out that neither of the two participants was a Cal student.
OdontoBear66 said:Wow. What you choose to read from what I write, knowing my intent, let us just say we shall agree to disagree.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I commented "we shouldn't discuss the event"??? How are you reading my post. I was saying "that Cal is shown not to be guilty in the event as it is two non students. But the campus has been a place of a lot of controversy in the past. Then, it will probably be blamed for such acts no matter what the acts are, because it is Berkeley."01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:I don't think I said or implied that at all. The "guilt by association types" are those who just assume Berkeley is Berzerkely---"it's always bad there". Doesn't do Cal much good, but I sure didn't discuss "false narrative" corrections. I think you may assume my philosophy and superimpose what you will thereon.01Bear said:OdontoBear66 said:So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.sycasey said:Once again, we have evidence that kelly09 does not read any of the linked articles people post here.B.A. Bearacus said:What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?kelly09 said:
A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/ucpd-makes-felony-arrest-in-assault-caught-on-video-on-uc-berkeley-campusQuote:
"UC Berkeley has said that neither man is a Cal student."
So Cal shouldn't correct a false narrative about how its students' free speech rights are restricted?
I was replying more to the implication in your comment that we shouldn't discuss the event based on actual known and knowable facts. I have no idea what your philosophies are, but when you mock someone for pointing out that another poster is ignoring a known fact and substituting a lie in its place, you are not only suggesting that lies should not be challenged but that you are willing to accept them. Hence, my comment.
That's all. Nothing about not discussing the event.
Ummm, this is the comment to which i was replying:OdontoBear66 said:
So ain't that great. Absolved of guilt. But then a cauldron for such potential behavior. Probably not good with the guilt by association types.
It does not contain any mention of having a discussion. Rather, it seems to shut down the suggestion that the discussion be based on facts, since it mocked another poster's comment in which it was pointed out that neither of the two participants was a Cal student.
The University is absolved of guilt. Again it has a reputation for such things happening. Then finally probably not a good scenario for those who put the two together for guilt by association. I really don't get what you are drawing from this. I sense you feel I was slighting a friend of yours on Insider and coming to his defense. First, he is perfectly capable himself, and second I was probably adding to his post more than any disagreement (although I do often disagree with sycasey).
Probably that the university was somehow negligent in allowing this to happen. Even if both of these kids were students, I still don't see what the university is supposed to do about it unless we're going to get involved in pre-crime.01Bear said:
Also, I still do not understand your claim that the university was absolved of guilt, as (1) you never eatablish of what it was guilty and (2) why it was guilty.
Yogi Bear said:Probably that the university was somehow negligent in allowing this to happen. Even if both of these kids were students, I still don't see what the university is supposed to do about it unless we're going to get involved in pre-crime.01Bear said:
Also, I still do not understand your claim that the university was absolved of guilt, as (1) you never eatablish of what it was guilty and (2) why it was guilty.
These are the same people who have said for years that "identity politics" is shoving other people's politics down my throat. So when there was, for example, a gay couple holding hands in public, they described this as rubbing deviant sexuality in their face (sometimes there is a political component, like being defiant to prejudice, but often it's just wanting acceptance or the act of being one's self, rather than wanting a confrontation). When the "other" wants to be able to conduct themselves in public life with the same liberty, freedom, and lack of scorn that the conservative "normal" person does, that is seen as an overtly political act and of wanting MORE rights.B.A. Bearacus said:
blungld said:These are the same people who have said for years that "identity politics" is shoving other people's politics down my throat. So when there was, for example, a gay couple holding hands in public, they described this as rubbing deviant sexuality in their face (sometimes there is a political component, like being defiant to prejudice, but often it's just wanting acceptance or the act of being one's self, rather than wanting a confrontation). When the "other" wants to be able to conduct themselves in public life with the same liberty, freedom, and lack of scorn that the conservative "normal" person does, that is seen as an overtly political act and of wanting MORE rights.B.A. Bearacus said:
But when they wear a hat, that is absolutely an overtly political statement and they know in advance the message it sends to the other (I belong to the group that wants to keep "you" out), they call it just harmless advocacy (or it is okay when I am being confrontational with my beliefs), not shoving anything down anyone's throat. It's not "identity politics" when that identity is conservative christian white and the uniform, language, platform, etc that goes with that identity. No, that is just being a normal person, there is NOT an identity around being "normal."
It is so dishonest on all sides of the argument. And completely un-self-aware.
Yes, it is their right to wear a hat. That doesn't mean they also have the right to be dishonest about their motives or to take no responsibility for the discord they sew. And, what kind of a jerk feels the need to demonstrate their tribal leaning 24/7, especially when that leaning causes anxiety and anger in others. How about just trying to be cool to other people?
I have all kinds of things I support and believe, but I wouldn't wear something that represents them if they were offensive to large groups of people or if it was likely to cause a stir.
It's the same with open carry. The "right" to carry a gun causes so much anxiety for those who do not know one thing about you or your intentions, and yet you insist and clearly enjoy the lording your right over those with whom you disagree. Your intentions and participation in society are messed up. Why be that ******?
I don't even like being around cops with guns, let alone regular citizens.blungld said:
It's the same with open carry. The "right" to carry a gun causes so much anxiety for those who do not know one thing about you or your intentions, and yet you insist and clearly enjoy the lording your right over those with whom you disagree. Your intentions and participation in society are messed up. Why be that ******?
So, on the Isgur thing:BearGoggles said:
So the entire left is upset about Isgur's hire, deeming her unsuitable to be a political editor where she might have some (but not complete) editorial control.
The political director at CNN - Isgur's boss - is a man named David Chalian. Chalian was previously fired from Yahoo for a hot mike episode where he was caught saying Romney was happy to have a party with black people drowning. He was referring to the republican convention which took place during a hurricane.
Chalian was fired by yahoo for these partisan and insulting remarks, only to be hired to head CNN's political reporting. If partisanship is an issue, it is hard to fathom how Chalian can be the boss, but Isgur can't be an employee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalian
https://www.weeklystandard.com/daniel-halper/reporter-romneys-happy-to-have-a-party-with-black-people-drowning
