Mercy. There are times when the left is hanging so far off the edge of the cliff – and I do mean by their fingernails – that it’s difficult to know when they will finally fall.
In a series of op-ed articles in the U-C Berkeley school newspaper, several students made an effort to justify the campus violence last week that shut down a speech by Breitbart provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. To say the rioters succeeded is an understatement. Amid fires and smashed windows, Mr. Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated from the area by police.
Without a doubt, Milo is a strange animal of sorts. But that is not the essential issue here. The matter at hand is that U-C Berkeley was the epicenter of the free speech movement in the 1960’s and is now at the heart of stopping free speech. What a difference a generation makes.
Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire put it perfectly when he called the student op-eds, “a self-immolating display of narcissistic stupidity.” That it is – and more. In a series of opinion pieces under the heading “Violence as Self-Defense” Berkeley’s finest waxed:
To Milo: I’m sorry that you were too scared to stand your ground during a routine Berkeley protest. Hopefully, you’ll think twice now about recruiting at my alma mater, where hate speech may be allowed a platform by the administration but will never be tolerated by the student body. Here’s a big f*** you from the descendants of people who survived genocides by killing Nazis and people just like them.
Here’s another beauty titled “Violence helped ensure Student Safety”: (I swear I’m not making this up)
To me, the argument should not revolve just around freedom of speech but also around the hate speech that fails to respect the humanity of undocumented people. This speaker has never provided an insightful look at conservatism nor provided intellectual debate to the arena. He has fabricated a tool to sensationalize himself with while providing a platform for white supremacists to come together. He, in fact, wanted to use the power of the state (immigration officers) to deport some of the most outspoken of us, therefore threatening our freedom of speech with the power of the state.
It's one thing to commit acts of violence but quite another to justify that violence in the name of student safety. If this seems as illogical to you as it does to me, students at U-C Berkeley might be better served to drop that class in “Arguing with Judge Judy: Popular ‘Logic’ on TV Judge Shows” (I’m not making this up either—this was an actual class.) and sign up for Logic 101.
If you tease out the student argument – that hate speech should be banned, the next logical — yes logical — question to ask is: Who determines what qualifies as hate speech? And there, boys and girls, lies the crux of the matter. Should we have a committee? A hate speech panel of judges? What about a Federal Commission on Hate Speech? Or is one person’s hate speech another’s sincerely held beliefs?
Okay then, let’s start a panel of judges on Closely Held Beliefs. Those on the left are permitted; those on the right, not so much.
C’mon Berkeley Brats: Don’t you realize this is a very sticky wicket? Free Speech is just that – freedom to say things that might offend you.
What part of this do you not understand? That was a rhetorical question.
Please don’t answer, I might be offended and have to report you to the Dean of Hate Speech – coming soon to a campus near you.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg%20Retirement&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
