Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday October 29 2016, @02:53PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the whatever-happened-to-DEsegregation? dept.

The Washington Times reports a story about protesters on the UC Berkeley campus physically blocking white students from accessing a bridge while police stand by and watch:

Students at the University of California, Berkeley held a day of protest on Friday to demand the creation of additional “safe spaces” for transgender and nonwhite students, during which a human chain was formed on a main campus artery to prevent white students from getting to class.

The demonstrators were caught on video blocking Berkeley’s Sather Gate, holding large banners advocating the creation of physical spaces segregated by race and gender identity, including one that read “Fight 4 Spaces of Color.”

Protesters can be heard shouting “Go around!” to white students who attempt to go through the blockade, while students of color are greeted with calls of “Let him through!”

Students turned away by the mob are later shown filing through trees and ducking under branches in order to cross Strawberry Creek, which runs underneath the bridge.

The protests were a response to a Safe Space being moved from the fifth floor of a building down to the basement.


[Original version of this story had "UCLA"; corrected to: "UC Berkeley" -Ed.]

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Saturday October 29 2016, @02:59PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday October 29 2016, @02:59PM (#420121) Homepage
    ... shed a collective tear.

    People who actually care about equality support the right to hold nazi rallies, and to wear the US flag as a nappy.
    --
    I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:04PM (#420122)

      I am so done with some of these people.. I would have just barreled on through with a vehicle.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:16PM (#420125)

        Non white students block white students from going to class. Oh, but it's not racist because it wasn't white people blocking non whites. Fuck that shit.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:03PM (#420144)

          Oh, but it's not racist because it wasn't white people blocking non whites.

          Actually, that's at the core of what's going on: the word "racist" is being redefined so that a "racist" is any person, regardless of his or her personal merits or beliefs, belonging to a race (or ethnic group) that historically had more power than races or groups. It's very much a "sins of the father" deal, one predicated on the notion that children continue to reap the benefits of the sins of the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. and the entire race. Those benefits are the "privilege" of which students now speak.

          I can't tell whether they earnestly believe that identifying all white people as "racist" and lumping them in with 4chan's army of frog-worshipping Hitler fanatics is a good idea, or if it's just a propaganda push to get more power for a junta of friends on campus. The manifestoes last year on several campuses bore all the hallmarks of the latter, with a small number of students running the shitshow and trying to install themselves as tribunals to hire and fire faculty and allocate school funds.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:15PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:15PM (#420233)

            The parent is right on point regarding the attempt to redefine the word "racism" (prejudice based on race) to include an unprecedented addendum "... with power", and by that they do effectively mean "... only if the perpetrator is white-skinned/majority race". I've also had multiple conversations with confrontational SJWs and LGBT++ evangelists which confirm the parent's assertion of the attempted redefinition.

            It's deceptive and repugnant, in addition to being very, very stupid as the white-skinned folks still make up the overwhelming majority of the US population. It's short-sighted fools or cowardly, malicious murderers who want to kick off a race war by playing kindergarten-level word games of the "I'm not actually touching you [youtube.com]" variety.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:47PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:47PM (#420246)

              > The parent is right on point regarding the attempt to redefine the word "racism" (prejudice based on race) to include an unprecedented addendum "... with power"

              So, what exactly is the problem with ineffective racism? Are you some kind of thought police now? So what if some numbnut is racist all on their own? An asshole is an asshole regardless of motive. Are you giving selfish assholes a pass but not racially-motivated assholes?

              The only kind of racism that matters is the kind that comes hand in hand with power.

              Quit being a pedant ostrich and get your head out of the sand.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:18PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:18PM (#420260)

                If you want to make up a new word to describe the problem as you see it, go ahead. However, when you and your allies try to stealthily piggyback your baggage onto a clearly understood existing word now, expect to get called on it as frequently as you misuse it.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:22PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:22PM (#420292)

                  > If you want to make up a new word to describe the problem as you see it, go ahead.

                  You can always count on dictionary pedants to fail to actually read the dictionary. You types pick and choose the definition you like and pretend all the other definitions are invalid.

                  Racism has always been about systems of power that enforce inequality. The fact that it can also be about individual prejudice does not negate the systemic definition.

                  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism [merriam-webster.com]

                  Definition of racism

                  1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
                  2. a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
                    b : a political or social system founded on racism
                  3. racial prejudice or discrimination
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:37PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:37PM (#420301)

                    Ah, I understand now: when blocking a white guy from using a public accomodation for being "a racist", he's actually being called "a political or social system based on racism" based solely on said individual's skin color.

                    I got it now, thanks for explaining. It all makes sense once you once again misappropriate definitions for uses they are obviously not applicable to.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:54PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:54PM (#420317)

                      So not only do you fail to read the dictionary, you fail to read the thread you are posting in. You know, the one where systemic power was explicitly described: [soylentnews.org]

                      It's very much a "sins of the father" deal, one predicated on the notion that children continue to reap the benefits of the sins of the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. and the entire race. Those benefits are the "privilege" of which students now speak.

                      Maybe you should consider giving up on pedantry to excuse bigotry and start actually caring about the effects of bigotry.

                      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:12PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:12PM (#420326)

                        Yeah, I sure know that I'm responsible for the sins of my fathers, all my mighty and unearned privilege and esteem. Wait - hold on; Jim on the back forty is acting up again. Okay, I'm back - goin' to have to switch off arms lest all that whippin' ruin my superior genetic symmetry.

                        You do realize that the very comment you linked to (and I defended when it was modded -1, Troll) is attacking the idea of collective racism of currently-living white-skinned people based upon the supposed [globalresearch.ca] monopoly [ancient-origins.net] on slavery [townhall.com] by white-skinned people?

                        Perhaps you mistake my evisceration of your tripe as support for the status quo; if so, you are mistaken. I'm extremely anti-slavery to the point where I recognize the current USA to be one big de facto slave state owned by a sizable-but-not-really-all-that-large criminal cartel that is using these divisions centered around a flatly incorrect definition of "racism" (among other things) as a distraction to keep the slaves infighting rather than realizing they have the power on an individual level to walk away from the plantation - or outright kill their self-appointed "masters" with ease. So, sure, keep railing against those "racist societal institutions" wrapped up inside a single piece of white human skin - you're one of the masters' good little slaves.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:23PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:23PM (#420332)

                          As soon as you tried to play the irish slaves bullshit you eviscerated yourself. The indentured and penal servitude of the Irish is not even close to the hereditary chattel status of africans. That's stormfront quality tripe.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:50PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:50PM (#420357)

                            [some desperate handwaving]

                            Feeling pressured? Your views not seeming well-grounded at the moment? Good - maybe next you'll realize that modern slavery fueled by false accusations of "racism" is even more insidious than just openly calling it by its ugly name.

                            There are plenty of oblivious people of all skin colors scurrying about, too busy to do much else other than try to keep themselves and their families from starving. Such people may be feeding the system while under its lash, but they are not your enemies. Your enemies are the orchestrators, leaders, and willing enforcers. Calling Joe Sixpack the mastermind and beneficiary of the societal system you and I both despise is just... counter-productive. At best.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:59PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:59PM (#420364)

                              modern slavery fueled by false accusations of "racism" is even more insidious than just openly calling it by its ugly name.

                              Lol. Yeah, "modern slavery." Dude, you fucking brought up that stormfront shit. And you hide behind dictionary pedantry. Who can take you seriously?

                              Calling Joe Sixpack the mastermind and beneficiary of the societal system you and I both despise is just... counter-productive. At best.

                              yeah, that's the point here, joe sixpack is the mastermind. No, he's just a beneficiary. He's not high up the ranks. But when the average black family has just 7% of the wealth of the average white family, systemic racism is still the dominating factor.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:35AM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:35AM (#420381)

                                systemic racism is still the dominating factor

                                Maybe you live in Martha's Vineyard. That's the only explaination I can come up with in regards to your completely fanciful belief that a random white-skinned human benefits from the problems in the status quo you identify as "racism". I guess Joe Sixpack of your fantasy world only has one or two stripes on his pointed bedsheet's rank insignia. Venturing into that fantasy just for sake of argument: that's a pretty stupid way to fight a war, by attacking the lowest-ranking troops you can find.

                                Of course, I do reject your fallacious assertions that a white-skinned individual can be a "racist societal system" and therefore be "racist" for existing while in the same breath claiming the "he white! beat his shit! [youtube.com]" thugs cannot be racist.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:57AM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:57AM (#420389)

                                  Dictionary pedant.
                                  Stormfront fellow traveler
                                  And Connoisseur of strawmen.

                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:41AM

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:41AM (#420406)

                                    Since all you are left with is mere ad hominem, I take it you feel unable to successfully defend your attempt to redefine the word "racism". Excellent. Go and sin no more.

                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:03PM

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:03PM (#420639)

                                      I'm not 'defending' anything. That was accomplished when I posted the definition from the actual dictionary.
                                      After that, all I've done is fuck with an obvious dipshit.

                                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @02:12AM

                                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @02:12AM (#420740)

                                        Your "posting the definition from the actual dictionary" attempted to make the deceptive and incorrect claim that "racism" could be used for its description of a "social system" to apply to a lone individual based upon nothing more than said individual belonging to the majority race.

                                        I know you're not 'defending' such a twisting of words - it is indefensible. You did give it a try, though.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:12PM (#420148)

      Oh look a white man telling everybody that Dr King thought that anti-racism means to treat the weak exactly the same way as you treat the powerful. And its a first post. And its +5 insightful on one of the most racially ignorant forums on the web. What a surprise. Sounds like the entire sum of your knowledge of Dr King is a single quote. You know, the one that all the people who believe in reactionary colorblindness just fucking love to cite.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:00PM (#420158)
        • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:01PM (#420160)

          Don't be a douche. State your point. A link to a long-ass biography doesn't mean shit.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:22PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:22PM (#420167)

            Holmes Norton specialized in freedom of speech cases, and her work included winning a Supreme Court case on behalf of the National States' Rights Party,[9] a victory she put into perspective in an interview with one of the District of Columbia Bar's website editors: "I defended the First Amendment, and you seldom get to defend the First Amendment by defending people you like ... You don’t know whether the First Amendment is alive and well until it is tested by people with despicable ideas. And I loved the idea of looking a racist in the face—remember this was a time when racism was much more alive and well than it is today—and saying, 'I am your lawyer, sir, what are you going to do about that?'"

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by t-3 on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:46PM

        by t-3 (4907) on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:46PM (#420179)

        Treating everyone equally is the antithesis of racism. Unequal treatment = inequality. Unequal treatment based on race = racism. It's not complicated. Reparations and repairing the effects of insitutional racism are another argument, and have nothing to do with what racism is. Even if racism against white people was justified (and it's no more justified than racism against anyone else), it's counterproductive and not in anyone's best interests. In any case, these are just college kids showing out and riding the wave of the times, nothing really widespread and it doesn't deserve to have as much attention as it's getting. The reasons it's getting attention is interesting though - is it media pandering to create conflict? White people shocked that the black power movement is experiencing a revival? Or is it just racists jumping on every sight of black people doing something slightly objectionable so they can point fingers?

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:55PM (#420184)

          > Treating everyone equally is the antithesis of racism.

          You can worry about treating people equally when they actually are equal. Until then that entire argument is hypothetical. Anyone claiming "racism is over" has either been living in a cave their entire life or is a racist.

          > In any case, these are just college kids showing out and riding the wave of the times, nothing really widespread and it doesn't deserve to have as much attention as it's getting.

          No its not. Its a completely manufactured story. [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:07PM

            by t-3 (4907) on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:07PM (#420187)

            Well, there were only 2 black people in the video so you can't really say they turned away black people, and I didn't see any obviously transgendered people, but the camera wasn't great and they might not have been obviously transgender. So, it's not a manufactured story, it's just manufactured outrage. These are just college kids being college kids protesting just to protest.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:17PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:17PM (#420191)

              Jesus christ, did you not see the quote?
              It is a completely manufactured story. Why would trans people decide to make their protest into a racial issue?
              Did any of the signs say anything racial?
              Did any of the people say anything racial?

              • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:27PM

                by t-3 (4907) on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:27PM (#420197)

                I didn't see any signs at all. There were tee shirts with racial stuff though.

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JNCF on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:44PM

                by JNCF (4317) on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:44PM (#420227) Journal

                Jesus christ, did you not see the quote?

                Did you not watch the video?

                Did any of the signs say anything racial?

                @0:08: "Fight 4 Spaces of Color"

                Did any of the people say anything racial?

                @2:45: "This is about whiteness, this is not about you, this is not about white people."

                Also, every time the crowd yells "go around" at a white person, but "let him through" for other people. This is definitely racial, and racially discriminatory, whether or not it falls into newspeak definitions of "racism" that require the backing of powerful institutions.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:16PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:16PM (#420234)

                  > @0:08: "Fight 4 Spaces of Color"

                  Ok, but that is literally not about whiteness.

                  > @2:45: "This is about whiteness, this is not about you, this is not about white people."

                  I don't know what he said there, there is too much background noise, but your transcription is a contradiction. If it is about whiteness how is it not about white people?

                  > Also, every time the crowd yells "go around" at a white person, but "let him through" for other people.

                  Timestamp?

                  • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:16PM

                    by JNCF (4317) on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:16PM (#420259) Journal

                    Ok, but that is literally not about whiteness.

                    Your original questions were asking for things that are "racial," not "about whiteness." I feel comfortable saying that the sign was racial.

                    I don't know what he said there, there is too much background noise, but your transcription is a contradiction. If it is about whiteness how is it not about white people?

                    I can definitely understand doubting my transcription given the amount of background noise. If we hypothetically accepted my transcription then the apparent contradiction would be the fault of the speaker, not the typist. I'm am not responsible for the logical inconsistency of the statement, nor am I surprised by it. It may be more or less akin to The Mighty Buzzard saying that he's anti-black, but he's not against black people, he's against black culture. I could see "whiteness" being used as a synonym for "white culture," but I could also see it meaning something else entirely; I don't pretend to know how that protester models race. Either way, I'm pretty sure "whiteness" is racial.

                    Timestamp?

                    I falsely remembered (or previously misheard?) chanting at of "let him through" multiple times, but on review I only hear one clearly audible instance of "Let him go! Let him go!" This is at 0:03 when we see an Asian guy climbing the edge of the bridge's railing. He has to climb the railing because the front line of the crowd is busy repelling a white student who is trying to physically force his way through the barrier and being pushed back. In reviewing the clip to get the timestamp, it occured to me that the "let him go" could theoretically be a call to release the white student, even though he was already released by the crowd at that point -- the people on the back might not have realised the full situation. I find it much more likely that they're referring to the Asian who had not still not gotten through that they were accidentally blocking due to their focus on blocking the white student, but I recognize the possible validity of other interpretations. The Asian student definitely got past the barrier without the same resistance given to the white student.

                    At 1:30 we see two students pass through without being blocked, and then it cuts to two more being let through without being blocked. These are not accompanied by a chant -- I falsely remembered them as having been before. I unconditionally admit that I was wrong about this, but to be convinced that these were actually members of the protest joining in I would need to see them involved in the protest at other points in this video or a different one. I don't see that, but I could be missing it. Please, point it out if you see it.

                    This still looks like racial discrimination to me. If we had good reason to believe that the difference in whether or not a student was blocked was entirely determined by their participation in the protest, I would be willing to say that the protest was not discriminatory (though I would still say it was a racial protest, based on the language used). Any evidence of a non-white person being purposefully blocked from using the bridge, or evidence that all of the people who were allowed to use the bridge were actually protesters, would bring me to that position.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:30PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:30PM (#420263)

                      Your original questions were asking for things that are "racial," not "about whiteness." I feel comfortable saying that the sign was racial.

                      Great, you win the pedant war.
                      But there is no meaning in that. The idea that fighting against racial discrimination makes you racist is a cop-out. Its the equivalent of the "all lives matter" bullshit. Which is like telling the NRA that "all amendments matter."

                      The Asian student definitely got past the barrier without the same resistance given to the white student.

                      That is unsupported by the video. All the video shows is the kid after he's made it past them. This video is full of very deliberate cuts and that's one of them. Why not show what he had to do to get past them? Obviously because he had to work at it pretty damn hard and that would negate the false narrative the video editor is presenting.

                      At 1:30 we see two students pass through without being blocked, and then it cuts to two more being let through without being blocked. These are not accompanied by a chant -- I falsely remembered them as having been before. I unconditionally admit that I was wrong about this, but to be convinced that these were actually members of the protest joining in I would need to see them involved in the protest at other points in this video or a different one. I don't see that, but I could be missing it. Please, point it out if you see it.

                      The second pair of girls actually start chanting. You can see the last one through start moving her mouth and arms in unison with the other chanters. But why do you need to actually see them in the protest later on? The big clue is the fact that the video editor cuts the video immediately after they enter the line. The editor obviously has a narrative he's pushing, the captions he's put on the video make that 100% clear. And yet, time and again the most damning evidence is cut. Why would he do that unless the missing video contradicts the story he's pushing?

                      • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:16PM

                        by JNCF (4317) on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:16PM (#420286) Journal

                        Great, you win the pedant war.

                        It's not a war, it's an attempt to clearly convey things to each other. I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to be less wrong. If we mean different things, or shift meanings of things around in the middle of conversations, communication breaks down and becomes pointless.

                        The idea that fighting against racial discrimination makes you racist is a cop-out.

                        I don't think I ever propagated that idea, and I'm not sure what I said that is being misconstrued as that idea. I believe that it is possible to fight racial discrimination in multiple ways, and that there are some ways of fighting some racial discrimination that are themselves racist, but I don't think the act of fighting against racial discrimination is inherently racist. Please clarify what I said that you're referring to.

                        That is unsupported by the video. All the video shows is the kid after he's made it past them. This video is full of very deliberate cuts and that's one of them. Why not show what he had to do to get past them? Obviously because he had to work at it pretty damn hard and that would negate the false narrative the video editor is presenting.

                        The Asian student isn't being actively pushed and grabbed in the video, while the white student is. To say that they met the same level of resistance, you would have to infer that the Asian student was pushed and grabbed off camera, which is a baseless assumption. You can't just assume something was cut from the record because it would be convenient for your original interpretation of evidence if it were.

                        The second pair of girls actually start chanting. You can see the last one through start moving her mouth and arms in unison with the other chanters.

                        Ever been involved in a college protest? There is a fairly stable nucleus of people who hang out for a while and hold signs (until their next class starts), and there are a bunch of people who pass by and briefly pump their fists in the air and chat with you while walking but don't actually bother to stop. I don't see that as evidence of them actually joining the protest. Even if we take the video at face value we should expect that those passing over the bridge would be politically aligned with the protesters -- it seems like most non-white students still used the path through the stream, which I interpret as being either out of solidarity or conflict avoidance.

                        I recognize that the video seems to have been produced by a biased party, and I'm open to other videos of the event as evidence of what transpired. I won't take the principal's word on it. I really am open to changing my view of this event, but I need evidence that contradicts the video. As is, the best evidence I see points to bridge access being restricted in a way that is determined by race.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:37PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:37PM (#420300)

                          The Asian student isn't being actively pushed and grabbed in the video, while the white student is. To say that they met the same level of resistance, you would have to infer that the Asian student was pushed and grabbed off camera, which is a baseless assumption.

                          It is not a baseless assumption, the lack of forth-coming proof from someone who clearly had the evidence is a strong case for assumption.

                          I won't take the principal's word on it. I really am open to changing my view of this event, but I need evidence that contradicts the video. As is, the best evidence I see points to bridge access being restricted in a way that is determined by race.

                          Well, all I can say is that you are failing to apply critical thinking. You call it "best evidence" when in fact it is inherently suspect evidence. You are literally taking the video editor's word on it, despite the video essentially being self-contradictory for failing to show what would be the most powerful evidence for his claims if they were true.

                          What more plausible explanation is there for all of those suspicious cuts?

                          • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:51PM

                            by JNCF (4317) on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:51PM (#420315) Journal

                            What more plausible explanation is there for all of those suspicious cuts?

                            I'm not sure exactly which cuts you are talking about. I think the particular one we were discussing before is mid-way through 0:02, and off the top of my head I can see a couple of plausible explanations for it that aren't purposefully deceptive. The camera operator could have had to swap some equipment (batteries, tapes, or memory cards), I've had that fuck up otherwise good shots when documenting an event. I have also seen people make edits like that when their camera work is especially shitty, like if they jerked the camera around (or somebody bumped into it) and they then pointed it back where it belonged and decided it was less disorienting to chop out the sudden movement than to keep it in. Note that the angle changes significantly. I wouldn't agree with that editing decision in a video like this, but I've seen it done by others and I wouldn't be surprised by it.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:01PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:01PM (#420319)

                              > I'm not sure exactly which cuts you are talking about.

                              Every single example of non-white people supposedly getting preferential treatment. None of them show both before and after, there is always a hard cut right where the best evidence would be. This case where cut hides whatever preceded the guys breaking through the line. Then two pairs of girls entering the line around 1:30 - cut immediately after each pair crosses the threshold. We don't see them continuing on their merry way.

                              Maybe you can excuse it one time. But not every time. The whole story is based on footage that is not present. It is blatantly manipulative and the only people who would be fooled by it are people who want to be fooled by it.

                              • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:13AM

                                by JNCF (4317) on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:13AM (#420394) Journal

                                If we're now talking about cuts that happen at the beginning and end of a scene, and not in the middle, much less of an explanation is necessary. Those could simply be a matter of taste by the editor. Imagine for a moment that the events did transpire the way the video presents them -- the video shows enough to document this. Only in light of contradictory claims does the follow-through matter. Again, I'd love to see the unedited video, but I can also see how these cuts could be made in good faith.

                                We're only disagreeing about what is the most likely way the event in the video happened, correct? We agree that if the protesters were actually barring access to the bridge based on the metric of whiteness, that would be an unacceptable action?

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:08PM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:08PM (#420640)

                                  > Those could simply be a matter of taste by the editor.

                                  Your willingness to make up explanations has convinced me you are past arguing in good faith. If you honestly believe that baloney, then I'm confident that even the unedited video would fail to convince you.

                                  > We agree that if the protesters were actually barring access to the bridge based on the metric of whiteness, that would be an unacceptable action?

                                  Yes. Why is that even a question? Seriously. Where the fuck did that come from? First you make up the most implausible excuses for the video editor and now you implicitly accuse me of supporting racism. That tells me your entire world view is completely out of whack. That you would suspect that, despite absolutely no discussion of that point, says you exist in a completely different headspace from what I consider intellectually honest.

                                  • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday October 30 2016, @11:25PM

                                    by JNCF (4317) on Sunday October 30 2016, @11:25PM (#420704) Journal

                                    Pot and kettle, buddy. I didn't accuse you of racism, I asked your opinion. I was legitimately curious, and to me you're a random AC so I can't accurately model how you view the world. You're the one who's accusing me of being biased in my interpretations past the point of good faith. I think we're all biased about all kinds of things in ways we can't understand, and I can't rule out that any given interpretation of events that I have might be biased by mental subroutines I'm not even aware of, but to be past the point of good faith requires intent. I can gaurantee that I don't have such intent, but you'd have to take my word on it, which you won't, so we're done. Happy Halloween! I hope you aren't unduly stressed over a conversation with a stranger on the internet.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:02PM (#420232)

                Why would trans people decide to make their protest into a racial issue?

                Perhaps they wouldn't. But there's two rebuttals to that.

                First, that only matters if you assume the protesters are mostly/all trans people. In reality, a typical college campus probably has more SJW types looking for a cause than transgender people, so there may well be more of them in a protest intended to rectify some injustice against transgender people than there are of the directly affected trans people, and the protest is thus liable to collectively make choices that don't actually help the intended beneficiaries.

                Second, I don't think this protest is just about trans people. I'm not sure I understand the situation on campus, but AIUI both safe spaces for transgender people and safe spaces for people of color were moved to less desirable real estate (and maybe less square footage as well?) in order to make room for a for-profit bookstore on campus. So you have people who are upset about either safe space being moved, plus people who don't care about those safe spaces in particular, but are annoyed at the intrusion of an external business getting space on campus.

                Did any of the signs say anything racial?

                Well, one banner (mentioned in TFS) says "Fight 4 Spaces of color"*, and another sign says:

                  #FIGHT 4 QUEER&TRANS
                    SPACES OF COLOR
                #FIGHT 4 SPACES OF COLOR
                  STUDENTS OVER PROFIT

                Seems racial to me; "of color" is a specifically racial term, and I can't imagine they'd have chosen that wording if they just meant to suggest that the transgender safe spaces should have colorful decor.

                *Trying to quote this banner in print is complicated. TFS has it as "Fight 4 Spaces of Color", but the actual banner seems to have a lowercase C. Moreover, instead of separating words with spaces (in the longstanding tradition of the patriarchy), they've chosen to jam the words together, but color them alternately red and yellow, so the banner reads "Fight4Spacesofcolor".

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:07PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:07PM (#420280) Homepage Journal

            You can't change the world overnight, unless you're willing to see blood flow.

            The world has changed a lot in the past 50 years. Change is gradual, like it or not, or it is violent.

            A lot of white fools are turning over to allow non-white people to stick it to them, but not all white people are willing to do so.

            I advise patience. Things have changed, things will keep changing. The fools pushing for overnight change are as likely to spark a race war as not. That would suck, because I'm not black or brown, so I would be taken for white. I might have to shoot - or be shot by - some of my freinds.

            Some of you need to stop acting like ignorant asses. ALL LIVES MATTER. If you disagree with that, you're one of the ones who should be shot, no matter which color you are.

            --
            alles in Ordnung
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:46PM (#420310)

              I advise patience. Things have changed, things will keep changing. The fools pushing for overnight change are as likely to spark a race war as not.

              You sound exactly like the people who told Dr King to cut that shit out.

              He had words for people like you, [nbclearn.com] four days before the March on Washington:

              There may be this reaction among many whites in this country. I am sure that many whites in both North and South have the feeling that we are pushing things too fast and that we should cool off a while, slow up for a period. I cannot agree with this at all, because I think there can be no gainsaying of the fact that the Negro has been extremely patient. We have waited for well-nigh 345 years for our basic constitutional and God-given rights, and we still confront the fact that we are at the bottom of the economic ladder. We confront the fact that the gap between the medium income of Negroes and whites is widening every day. We confront the fact that the Negro is still the victim of glaring and notorious conditions of segregation and discrimination. I think instead of slowing up, we must push at this point, and we must continue to move on, and I am convinced that our moving on will not only help the Negro cause, so to speak, but the cause of the whole of America, because the shape of the world today just doesn’t permit our nation the luxury of an anemic democracy.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:02PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:02PM (#420321) Homepage Journal

                Sound like? Bullshit. Valid advice is valid advice. Let's be clear here - I cannot pass for black or brown. If/when a few radical, militant black guys come after me for violating THEIR gaybo "safe space", I'm going to gun them down.

                I wrote about a union picket line in New York once - maybe you saw it. I deliverd a load at an AT&T facility in Manhattan. I arrived about 4:00 in the morning. I saw no sign of a picket line at that time. When I departed, about 7:30, there was a picket line. As the gate was opened, the picketers started for my truck, shouting and gesturing. I gunned the engine, and pointed the wheel toward the biggest and ugliest picketers. They moved, or I would have run them over.

                In short - if the bastards want me bad enough, they'll get me, but it's going to cost them dearly.

                Now, would you rather be the young black man who wants to speak calmly to me, and hear my opinion, or would you rather be the young black man shouting obscenities at me and my family? The former gets my respect, the latter gets my bullets.

                --
                alles in Ordnung
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:13PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:13PM (#420327)

                  Sound like? Bullshit. Valid advice is valid advice. Let's be clear here - I cannot pass for black or brown. If/when a few radical, militant black guys come after me for violating THEIR gaybo "safe space", I'm going to gun them down.

                  In vino veritas? I always knew you were racist, but you normally keep the verbiage under control.

                  Now, would you rather be the young black man who wants to speak calmly to me, and hear my opinion, or would you rather be the young black man shouting obscenities at me and my family? The former gets my respect, the latter gets my bullets.

                  So you're going to shoot a black man just for swearing at you.
                  Pretty sure you never had any actual respect to give. Just restraint, and only on a good day.

                  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:31PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:31PM (#420341) Homepage Journal

                    Which part of the word "militant" did you fail to understand? No, I didn't say I was going to "shoot a black man". I stated that I would gun down an entire god-damned crowd of militant black men, just as I aimed my truck a an entire crowd of belligerent union picketers. And, race has nothing to do with my reaction. A threat to my life has no color.

                    I don't intend to be the victim. Better to be judged by twelve, than to be carried by six - I'm sure you've heard that saying before.

                    As I've stated elsewhere in this discussion - I'm surrounded by people who don't look like me. We deal with each other daily, in a mutually respectful manner. Bring out the disrespectful, unruly, belligerant young assholes who want reparations and retaliation, and you'll find that to be more trouble than you thought.

                    --
                    alles in Ordnung
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:40PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:40PM (#420348)

                      Which part of the word "militant" did you fail to understand?

                      The part where militant equals violent. You literally said "shouting obscenities," not threatening you, not attacking you.

                      You've got a problem and tonight you spelled it out in clear language.
                      And the "gaybo" thing was the cherry on top. Gonna try for the hat trick?

                      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:50PM

                        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:50PM (#420358) Homepage Journal

                        Get a fucking dictionary. And, be sure that it wasn't published by democrats. "militant" has one meaning, not some bullshit you might make up.

                        Now, those assholes in California - did they TOUCH anyone? That's assault. You do understand the terms "assault" and "self defense"? Again - get a dictionary. You may choose to play stupid, but I'm not playing.

                        --
                        alles in Ordnung
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:05AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:05AM (#420370)

                          > Get a fucking dictionary. And, be sure that it wasn't published by democrats.

                          Oh, so now you have your own dictionary. Unable to explain away your literal words, you are trying to wish them away.

                          You said "shouting obscenities. " You did not say threaten, you did not say attack.

                          > You may choose to play stupid, but I'm not playing.

                          No, you certainly aren't playing. For you, its real.

                          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 30 2016, @08:21AM

                            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 30 2016, @08:21AM (#420458) Homepage Journal

                            I used the words "militants" and "shouting obscenities" in the same sentence.

                            The KKK is notorious for having murdered a number of black people. They come drag you away from your home, and hang you under a bridge. Now a bunch of racist louts walking up your driveway to get you ARE NOT shouting obscenities? Jesus H. Christ, you're dense. In your world, the KKK has always been extremely disciplined, never shouting or cursing their victims. Just quietly take care of business, with courtesy and efficiency.

                            One more time, get a fucking dictionary.

                            --
                            alles in Ordnung
              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:48PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:48PM (#420355)

                what the hell does mlk fighting "the good fight" have to do with brainwashed, spoiled, dependents at colleges whining about their feelings being hurt and provoking violence by blocking foot traffic? not even close, dipshit.

        • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:20PM

          by cubancigar11 (330) on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:20PM (#420236) Homepage Journal

          People like you are the problem. For the all the moral high ground you take within your brackets, you show it very clearly outside.

          is it media pandering to create conflict? White people shocked that the black power movement is experiencing a revival? Or is it just racists jumping on every sight of black people doing something slightly objectionable so they can point fingers?

          Yeah it must be somehow related to something white people are doing. Or racists are doing to black people. Isn't it? It could definitely NOT be related to conscious decision to push liberal feminist pc culture through student politics. Hey hey - it can happen all over the world but when it happens in America, it has to be somehow related to white people.

          I was about to think you are clueless, but you are willful ignorant, which is worse. The nonsense you see now has been going on for close to 5 years now. Mainstream media is reporting it sees a market of conservatism in rise of Trump. That's all.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by t-3 on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:30AM

            by t-3 (4907) on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:30AM (#420401)

            5 years? You need to pull your head out the sand. This has been going on for nearly 150 years, and in reality even before that. Black militism has never died, because black people have never had a fair shake; which makes my point for me: WHY is this getting media attention? It's about causing this "rise of conservativism" (which is simply the showing of racism rather than the rise of anything, because none of these people woke up and decided they didn't like black people, they've felt that way for a long time). Somebody wants conflict, but who is it? What are the motives of the people who push this divisive and mostly irrelevant stuff to the surface? Is it a liberal agenda, as you say? Or is it bread and circus - keeping everyone from or at the bottom at each others' throats so they don't look up? Watch the video: these are white children protesting, with one or two blacks in there. But the media has hyped it as black people stopping whites from crossing the bridge. It's about gay people more than blacks, but the media spins it in a certain way.. If marketing to conservatives was the plan, why introduce racial tension when many black and hispanic voters are extremely conservative?

            • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday October 30 2016, @06:52AM

              by cubancigar11 (330) on Sunday October 30 2016, @06:52AM (#420448) Homepage Journal

              I definitely don't think this is black people protesting. I am not interested in the color of protesters, I am interested in the politics being played out here which is grandiose victimization of students and bullying of university administration by student unions under protection of federal government using its funding. And this has been going on from last 5 years indeed with no importance being given be media because it is aligned with federal government's policies. Look it up, I am not talking about black vs. white struggle, I am talking about use of students by so called progressives.

              I am unable to find the link right now, but there was a conscious decision among humanities (philosophy and sociology) in late 1970s that academia has always done theoretical research and has stayed away from directly getting involved in governance and that there is no reason for academia to not directly be an agent of change. The current climate in universities is the direct result of what has been cooking for last 40-50 years, but has only started in last 5 years by rise of "alt-right" and "progressives".

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:58AM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:58AM (#420469) Journal

        And its +5 insightful on one of the most racially ignorant forums on the web.

        I disagree with your assertion. Just because we don't all agree with your particular viewpoint doesn't mean that we are ignorant of the topic under discussion.

        Anyone who uses race as an argument to receive special treatment is being racist. Equal treatment I can accept, but special treatment is unacceptable. So tell my why these groups need to have 'safe areas' where others with whom they disagree are not permitted? If a white person suggested a 'Whites Only' washroom, or special seating for non-whites at sporting venues they would - quite rightly - be accused of racism. But if a non-white makes a similar suggestion then it is perfectly acceptable? Do you understand what equality means? Why should I be held responsible for something that might have happened a hundred years before I was born? And, if you insist that such a thing is justified, then you have to accept that it has to apply to all people of all races - otherwise you are simply being racist yourself. And of course you are not racially ignorant despite you frequenting this site, you just believe that everyone else is. There may be problems that we still need to overcome, but enforcing segregation is not the solution.

        However, if you find this site so offensive, you don't need anyone's permission to leave. Or you can try to argue your case calmly and logically rather than making broad-brush accusations about other members of our community.

        --
        It's always my fault...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01 2016, @10:26AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01 2016, @10:26AM (#421202)

          Being racist against whites is fine because they are privileged in some ways. Actually, you can't even be racist against whites, because we've created our own definition of "racism" where that simply isn't possible and ignore all other definitions of "racism". You might say that this is dishonest sophistry--and you'd be right--but since you're racist it doesn't matter what you say.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:12PM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:12PM (#420124) Journal

    What exactly is a transgender safe space? What do people, er, do there? I assume this is different from support group? And wouldn't there be like a grand total of 2 people tops there at any given time anyway?

    Ugh… GO TO HELL PROTESTERS! YOU AREN'T HELPING ANYBODY!

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:31PM (#420128)

      In a safe space there is a hall of mirrors, and people can freely masturbate to their own reflections.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:00PM (#420159)

        Hall of mirrors reminds me of the waiting room in the office of a child psychiatrist. I only went in once to pick up my teen aged younger brother -- one or two walls were covered in 2" wide vertical strips of mirror with about 1" gaps between. The reflection that you saw was all chopped up, could even call it shattered. When the shrink came out I told him something along the lines of, "If you walked in whole, those mirrors might just fragment your self-image." His comment was that he'd never thought about his office decor at all.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:12PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:12PM (#420284) Homepage Journal

          I remember that "decor" from someplace. I mildly disliked it. Why not just put a whole mirror up, so people might use it?

          But, putting it in a shrink's waiting room? That sounds crazy. And, the shrink didn't even think about it? Crazier still.

          --
          alles in Ordnung
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:59PM (#420139)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:15PM (#420150)

      > I assume this is different from support group?

      It is not. "Support group" is a name that doesn't fully describe all the functions. Safe space is closer. But its one of those names that assholes love to mock because of what they imagine it means.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:35PM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:35PM (#420172) Journal

        It seems to be a pretty mock-able concept [reason.com]:

        My mother is a nursery school teacher. Her classroom is a place for children between one and two years of age—adorable little tykes who are learning how to crawl, how to walk, and eventually, how to talk. Coloring materials, Play-Doh, playful tunes, bubbles, and nap time are a few of the components of her room: a veritable "safe space" for the kids entrusted to her expert care….

        The safe space she created, as described by Shulevitz, sounds familiar to me [nytimes.com]:

        The safe space, Ms. Byron explained, was intended to give people who might find comments “troubling” or “triggering,” a place to recuperate. The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma. Emma Hall, a junior, rape survivor and “sexual assault peer educator” who helped set up the room and worked in it during the debate, estimates that a couple of dozen people used it. At one point she went to the lecture hall — it was packed — but after a while, she had to return to the safe space. “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,” Ms. Hall said.

        It's my mother's classroom!

        (Emphasis is Soave's.)

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:41PM (#420175)

          Surprise! You found somebody mocking it for an article specifically about denigrating the idea.
          You think that's meaningful? Really? How many times have you been mocked? Does the fact that someone set out to mock you mean you deserved to be mocked?

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:19PM

          by darkfeline (1030) on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:19PM (#420261) Homepage

          after a while, she had to return to the safe space. “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,” Ms. Hall said.

          This instills a controllable amount of fury in me. If someone can't stand that the entire world doesn't revolve around them, they really should log out of reality, they'll have a hell of time here.

          --
          Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:41PM (#420268)

            >> “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,
            >
            > This instills a controllable amount of fury in me.

            Doesn't that phrasing sound weird?
            I mean, really? Who talks like that?
            Its like a script. A script written by someone trying to caricature the ideas they disagree with.
            Maybe that should give you pause.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:35PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:35PM (#420297)

              So you can't accept the existence of people who believe idiotic things if they take concepts such as safe spaces to a level you wouldn't take them?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:06PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:06PM (#420322)

                Oh I am sure there are people who take them to crazy places.
                I just don't believe that people speak the way that woman was quoted.
                I mean what a coincidence that the author of the article just happened to interview someone with such a weird speech pattern who is also crazypants.
                Right?

    • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:20PM

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:20PM (#420166)

      Looking up this new-fangled term, it does seem to have a definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space [wikipedia.org] but it still doesn't make much sense.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:24PM (#420196)

      > Ugh… GO TO HELL PROTESTERS! YOU AREN'T HELPING ANYBODY!

      That's funny. You are advocating for a safe-space for people who prefer the status quo.
      Keep them safe from having to deal with people who want to protest the status quo.
      Irony much?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:24PM (#420237)

        Keep them safe from having to deal with people who want to protest the status quo

        And by "protest", you mean "bar access to public property based on skin color", right?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:42PM (#420243)

          And by "protest", you mean "bar access to public property based on skin color", right?

          Lets assume that was what actually happened there. It isn't, but lets go with it anyway:
          That would still be a space safe from bigotry.

          Either you buy into the idea of safe spaces or you don't. But once you start picking and choosing which safe spaces are legitimate and which aren't, you've given up any standing to criticize the concept of safe spaces.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:27PM (#420262)

            Lets assume that was what actually happened there.

            Yes, let's, because that appears to be exactly what happened.

            "Safe space" is a collectivist code word for so-called moral theft; if you want space that you control, pay for it out of your own pocket.

            Incidentally, since the maximum authority government has is limited to no more than the maximum authority a single random person inherently possesses, the taxation funds used to "buy" these fought-over public spaces were almost entirely stolen. Tragedy of the Commons is more the foundational issue here than people of various skin colors behaving like selfish idiots.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:43PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:43PM (#420269)

              Ok, you're a whacko. Thanks for clearing that up, but next time just lead with the craziness, ok? Save us all a lot of wasted effort.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:09PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:09PM (#420281)

                Ok, you're a whacko.

                Trying to kick, scream, and beguile your way into controlling the "magic club" of government with which to strike your foes has worked so well in the past. Why not examine the premises and let the ones that pass muster govern your viewpoints rather than trying to warp reality to suit your fantasy?

                Much easier to simply dismiss as crazy the messenger whose message challenges your safe space. Whatever lets you sleep at night...

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:22PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:22PM (#420291) Homepage Journal

            I do NOT believe in "safe spaces". Once you've left kindergarden, it is up to you to adjust to the world around you.

            If you want "safe spaces" then you have to understand and forgive the dominant white people in the early 1900's for barring black people from white society.

            Or, to be more blunt, you're just trying to justify racism because it's the "other race" being racist this time. Racism is racism. As a little boy, I was taught racism. It didn't take real firmly, but I was taught it. "Those people" just weren't "as good as us". My years in the service taught me that skin color don't mean diddly - I've been screwed over by all races, and people of all races have had my back when the crap hit the fan. Color means NOTHING. It's the man or woman inside that skin that counts.

            I would thank you if you would stop justifying modern racism. This shit is likely to lead to a race war.

            Ask yourself - which race probably has the most guns? Do you REALLY want to see that kind of thing happen? All it takes is backing the modern-day pariah into a corner. He'll start shooting in fear and self defense.

            --
            alles in Ordnung
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:27PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:27PM (#420336)

              > I do NOT believe in "safe spaces".

              Why does whatever you believe matter in the least?
              What makes your opinion worthy of citation?

              The rest of your post is apparently a violent fantasy that you hope to act out. So... not doing much for your credentials I'm afraid.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:37PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:37PM (#420345) Homepage Journal

                You are racist, so your opinion doesn't matter. credentials? WTF does AC know of credentials?

                --
                alles in Ordnung
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @06:23AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @06:23AM (#420446)

                  The line from the 2nd Ghostbusters: "He is Runaway! You are like the buzzing of flies to him! The scourge of Arkansaws, the sorrow of Texarkana, the Prince of Fox News! Bow down before him, and weep! For Runaway has an opinion!!!"

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @07:03PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @07:03PM (#420601)

                    I hereby dub thee Adhominem Coward.

    • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:45AM

      by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:45AM (#420465)

      From what I understand, it's a place where the norm is assumed to be inverted. Apparently, the ur-example is the gay bar. Or a place dedicated for a minority to eb the presumed majority. And you know, that doesn't sound horrible. People need to associate with likeminded people, even if going too far leads to a pure echo-chamber. Like everything, there's a balance between "Jack having to deal with Greg (who's an asshole 'casue 1st amendment) 24/7" and "Jack has to deal with Greg in the class they share",

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:26PM (#420126)

    banners advocating the creation of physical spaces segregated by race and gender identity, including one that read “Fight 4 Spaces of Color.”

    Wow. What a great idea.

    I suggest that we start by implementing this in public transportation. Coloured people will sit at the back of the bus, and white people will sit at the front of the bus.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:41PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:41PM (#420130) Homepage

      And separate drinking fountains, and separate entrances to buildings.

      Also note: Fix the summary. UCLA is not UC Berkeley, although the entire UC system is pozzed with AIDS and ridden with chinks. [postimg.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:08PM (#420188)

      Apartheid was not just things like separate train cars and beaches (although that happened, and things like that were called "petty apartheid").

      Apartheid, literally translated, means separation. The entire society was to be segregated by race from the top down. Different governing structures, different areas of land, different school structures, different everything.

      Drinking fountains were, at best, a footnote. Apartheid wasn't what happened in the deep south, it was a lot more like nazism.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:40PM (#420305)

      I suggest that we start by implementing this in public transportation. Coloured people will sit at the back of the bus, and white people will sit at the front of the bus.

      So what you are saying is that we should create a "safe space" for colored people at the back of the bus. So progressive!

      But let's not stop there... The next step should be to create additional "safe spaces" for colored people by reserving drinking fountains for their exclusive use too!

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:28PM (#420127)

    To give 24x7 coverage to gripping stories like this.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:47PM (#420134)

    Would it be appropriate for white people to advocate having their own spaces that no one else is allowed go enter?

    So why is it fine for others to do this?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:02PM (#420141)

      You have some metal wire you want to cut, you bend it right at forth from one extreme to another, till it breaks. Same with society. The same hand promotes hedonism and then austerity, treating minorities as cattle and white privilege theorists.
      The objective is to discourage rational people to try and make sense of things.

      Besides, a mob without uniform is an irregular army. No geneva convention for you.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:58PM (#420210)

      > Would it be appropriate for white people to advocate having their own spaces that no one else is allowed go enter?

      They don't need to advocate for those spaces because that's pretty much the default.

      The list of ways the entire country is a safe-space for whites is practically endless.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:29PM (#420238)

        So if there are institutions that practice racism in the dictionary-defined sense, why not just point the light and finger at them directly? Trying to muscle your way into running your own racist racket is a really bad idea when (presumably) you are in the minority.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:54PM (#420251)

          > why not just point the light and finger at them directly?

          If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:14PM (#420285)

            If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

            Yeah, best to beat that neutral bystanding human to death - THAT'LL learn the elephant not to step on the tails of mice!

            Your misdirection was noted, but too tantilizing to let pass without retort. My primary point remains unchallenged: "expose and mock the existing racists; don't try to 'fight racism' by creating still more racism."

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:45PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:45PM (#420308)

            You're either with us or you're against us, huh? Are you fond of Bush, by chance?

            And there are ways of opposing genuine oppressors that don't involve engaging in the same type of behavior they engage in.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:43PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:43PM (#420349)

              > You're either with us or you're against us, huh? Are you fond of Bush, by chance?

              Nope. Bishop Desmond Tutu.

              > And there are ways of opposing genuine oppressors that don't involve engaging in the same type of behavior they engage in.

              A section of the white population, perceiving black pressure for change, misconstrues it as a demand for privileges rather than as a desperate quest for existence.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01 2016, @10:17AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01 2016, @10:17AM (#421198)

                Nope. Bishop Desmond Tutu.

                That doesn't make 'with us or against us' any more valid, and certainly not with how you're applying it. It's just a false dichotomy.

                rather than as a desperate quest for existence.

                Enough with the bullshit hyperbole. You're nuts. I can't believe garbage like this gets modded as insightful.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:38PM (#420302)

        The names of streets have nothing to do with safe spaces. Neither do Oscar nominations.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:08AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:08AM (#420371)

          > The names of streets have nothing to do with safe spaces. Neither do Oscar nominations.

          Of course they do. It's about keeping the world safe for white fragility.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @02:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @02:12AM (#420411)

        I bet you can't name one street in your town named after a black man other than MLK Blvd.

        Where I live, we also have a Cesar Chavez Blvd. Does that count?

        Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour of the week. [christianitytoday.com]

        While it is clearly true that Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour of the week, I believe that this cuts both ways. People--black, white, and all the colours of the rainbow in between--are still largely choosing to self-segregate. So, what do you suggest we do about it? Hold a "kneel-in"? That doesn't seem particularly productive to me; most likely the "kneelers" would be invited to join in the worship service. (Well, OK, there may be a few churches where they would be greeted with angry scowls from white leaders with arms crossed...But I would be literally gobsmacked if this were to occur in more than a few white majority churches!) Much more profoundly impactful would be if a cohort of racially diverse worshippers were to start regularly attending a white-majority church; but that would require quite a bit more sustained engagement; somehow, I wonder how many of these protesters would be willing to make that kind of prolonged commitment. What about if a group of white people started regularly attending an historically black church? Would they be still welcomed with open arms after coming for a few weeks or a few months? Or would the regulars start gossiping about the problems of "gentrification"? It seems to me that attitudes will have to change on all sides for real change to occur. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening any time soon, much as I would like to see it happen sooner rather than later. Just sayin'.

        #OscarsSoWhite - 2 years without any non-white nominations for lead or supporting roles

        And, how do you propose we change that? Have a "set aside" for an actor of colour? Personally, if I were a minority I think I would be more insulted than honoured to get that prize? Also, we really don't know why there were no non-white nominations for lead or supporting roles the last two years. It's really hard for me to know what the motivations were that lead to that outcome. Do you have any insight on the matter, other than noting that the last two years #OscarsSoWhite?

        After he lost the election, George W Bush moved into a whites-only enclave. Our freaking president! But that just mirrors the segregation in all major US cities, especially the most "diverse" cities.

        First of all, I'm a bit confused. Geoge W Bush won re-election to the Presidency in 2004. Perhaps you meant his father, George HW Bush? Now, to address your point, yes, white-only enclaves are a problem. There is no reason for those to even exist. It is especially shocking that they would even exist today.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @10:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @10:02PM (#420664)

          > Where I live, we also have a Cesar Chavez Blvd. Does that count?

          Is he black? No.

          One road for the most famous black man in america and one road for the most famous latino man. The point is that all the other roads named for people are named for white people. You want to focus on the 0.1% and ignore the 99.9%.

          > are still largely choosing to self-segregate.

          Uh, yeah. What, you think the white people are being prevented from joining black churches?
          And yes, the fault is at the feet of the white people.

          Whites (37 percent) are least likely to say their church should become more diverse.

          African Americans (51 percent) and Hispanic Americans (47 percent) were more likely to say their church needs to be more diverse.
          http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/january/sunday-morning-segregation-most-worshipers-church-diversity.html [christianitytoday.com]

          > And, how do you propose we change that?

          Its not my job to fix. Stay focused. You don't have to be a baker to know when the bread is stale.
          The point is that our entire country is set up as a safe-space for white people where confronting non-whiteness is the exception, not the norm for most whites.

          > Perhaps you meant his father, George HW Bush?

          No. Read the link. Geez.

          > Now, to address your point, yes, white-only enclaves are a problem.

          That's not actually my point. The really issue is de facto housing segregation. And please don't tell me that's the fault of the brown people for 'self-segregating.'

          To repeat. The entry damn country is a safe-space for fragile white people. Complaining that non-whites want an occasional space of their own is hypocritical denialism.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Uncle_Al on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:56PM

    by Uncle_Al (1108) on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:56PM (#420138)

    UCLA != UCB , dumbass

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:03PM (#420143)

      I feel unsafe when other posters here are being called dumbasses.

    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:04PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:04PM (#420255)

      Now they have to travel, what, ~400 miles *and* go into the basement just to get to the Safe Space? No wonder they're protesting.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by RedBear on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:02PM

    by RedBear (1734) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:02PM (#420142)

    We could all go off half-cocked and start calling them all racists discriminating against whites (which they are, albeit briefly and for a specific purpose). Or we could remember the long, unpleasant history of segregation, discrimination, Jim Crowe and extreme violence that people of color have had to deal with for a long time, and acknowledge that many people of color and those with non-traditional sexuality or gender expression are still feeling very threatened and vulnerable in the modern world. Because, big shocker, they are in fact still widely discriminated against, verbally attacked, threatened with violence and even killed for simply being who they are. Right up to the present day.

    The desire to have a safe place where one is not under constant threat of attack is a universal human yearning. We don't camp out in the open when there is a good solid cave available. White nationalists feel the need for safe spaces just as much as trans people or people of color might feel the need for them, and we should be capable as a society of allowing those safe spaces to exist for any group that feels the need for one. The only argument really is to what extent public funds or public spaces should be earmarked for such things. As long as any group that wants a safe space is given equal resources, there shouldn't be much of a problem.

    Then again, perhaps this kind of thing is only possible in a parallel universe where people are more rational, magnanimous and pragmatic. In which case nobody would feel the need for safe spaces in the first place.

    --
    ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
    ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:09PM

      by Bot (3902) on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:09PM (#420146) Journal

      But if you behave just as your enemy does, then you acknowledge what he did is not inherently wrong, might makes right.

      --
      Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:41PM (#420153)

      The desire to have a safe place where one is not under constant threat of attack is a universal human yearning.

      It's 2016 in America, the most first-world of first-world nations. You are not "under constant threat of attack." You are paranoid, and if that paranoia affects your ability to function normally in society, it is a mental illness for which you should seek medical attention.

      If you lived in some lawless shithole like Somalia, you might have a legitimate point about "constant threat of attack." The actual safety of society has numbed you to the definitions of real danger and real suffering, and the heavily biased news beams propaganda about minorities being shot by police officers or white people while ignoring the reality of who actually commits what little violent crime does happen in America. If the news were required to show a picture of every perpetrator of every murder and robbery and rape for an equal amount of time, you'd see that half of all murders are committed by black people and that Latinos make up a big chunk of the "white" criminal population. Instead, you only get statistics about victims, not perpetrators, and then you only get the stories that conform to a grossly mendacious narrative. As for people being persecuted because of sexuality, it boggles the mind that gay men like Tim Cook or George Kalogridis or Anderson Cooper occupy the summits of business and media sectors while people talk about being under "constant threat of attack."

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:48PM (#420312)

        America

        "America" is a hemisphere, not a nation.

        Additionally, "first-world" is an anachronistic term that refers to hegemonic Cold War spheres of geopolitical influence.

        Now, if what you mean is "technologically advanced", USA might qualify--if you don't look at what Joe Average has for access to e.g. healthcare or higher education or the internet.

        If you mean "sociologically advanced" (that being completely subjective), it's clear that you know nothing about Iceland.

        ...or Germany.

        Now, if what you mean by "first" is "has the most ridiculously large collection of weapons and uses them and threatens to use them in order to gain influence", -then- you'd be correct.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:29PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:29PM (#420198) Journal

      Safe Spaces are fine in theory, but there is no such thing. Put three people of the identical race, religion, etc in the same room long enough, with no other company but each other's, and before long two of them will be ostracizing the third. Many people who dream of a harmonious, homogenous culture where the whole country is a safe space are living in a fantasy land. They neglect to observe the lot of countries that exist and do meet that description such as Japan. There burakumin and hibakusha are the untouchables, the shunned.

      The answer is not to pull back into a shell but rather to engage in the public discourse, thrust, parry, and, to be blunt, stop whining so goddamned much.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:41PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:41PM (#420306) Homepage Journal

        BINGO!!!

        Or, for those who need real life examples - more young black males are shot by young black males than by all other people in this nation.

        --
        alles in Ordnung
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:36PM (#420201)

      The desire to have a safe place where one is not under constant threat of attack is a universal human yearning.

      Let's not kid ourselves that this is afforded to everyone equally. If you are some white supremacist trying form a safe place like Leith, North Dakota (and especially with your own damn money), you will be hounded and derided. And before anyone suggests that the rest of the country is a safe place for these people, let's not forget how reviled these folk are even among other whites.

      And it goes on from men only establishments being called oppressive and sexist to insular Muslims refusing to integrate.

      You can't decry tribalistic tendencies of one being oppression while placing your own "whites only" signs. That shit ain't gonna fly.

      And regardless, there are certain courtesies afforded to everyone in a public space that keep the social lubricant flowing and keep us from each others' throats. The surest test is if the roles were reversed, what is standing?

      Can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:53PM (#420209)

      You're an idiot. They ARE racists, and random white people of today (especially in that age bracet for fuck sake!) had nothing to do with segregation so fuck anyone and everyone punishing them for it as if they were responsible.

      And a bunch of asshole protesters demanding safe spaces? Holy shit. They really don't seem to need them now do they?

      Eat a dick or a pussy. Whichever you find more offensive.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:38PM (#420303)

      white is a color, you stupid suck ass whore!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:39PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:39PM (#420304) Homepage Journal

      Safe space is spelled H O M E. I have never in my life barged into any man or woman's home, uninvited. They are perfectly safe at home. When they walk out that door, and head off to work, it ain't "safe" anymore. Or, it's just as safe for them as it is for me.

      This demand for a "safe space" only makes me look down on people who need it. A "safe space" is where you keep the little children, the elderly, and the mentally incompetent. Those people don't look terribly young, or terribly old, so I presume that they are just retards.

      --
      alles in Ordnung
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:08PM (#420145)

    EOM

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:51PM (#420154)

    Come on guys. When are the editors going to stop being so god damn credulous?

    The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies. [sourcewatch.org] They are nutjobs on the same level as scientologists. [wikipedia.org] Anything they report needs to be independently confirmed by a non nutjob source [sfgate.com] before you even consider taking it seriously:

    But UC Berkeley Assistant Vice Chancellor Dan Mogulof said that race and ethnicity played no role in who was allowed to cross the line.

    "Simply put, no one, of any ethnicity, was allowed to pass except for one or two individuals who asked to join the protest itself," Mogulof wrote in an email.

    Just watch their own video. You can see plenty of non-white students also inconvenienced by the protest. Look at 47 seconds in, [youtu.be] where the caption says "Many crossed Strawberry Creek, which flows underneath the bridge where the protest was taking place." The first three people in that shot are asians, there is a white guy and then there is a hispanic guy. Cut to a different angle and there are lots more non-white people taking that path.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:58PM (#420157)

      The Washington Times is indeed owned by the Moonies, but their editorial and reporting is pretty straightforward Republican, conservative, point out when Dems like Obama or Hillary have a bad day, etc.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:12PM (#420164)

        The fact that sometimes they have non-crazy stories doesn't negate their predilection for totally fact-free stories like this one. If any "liberal" news source had the same duplicity in reporting they'd be bankrupt within a year due to all the sane readers leaving for more solid ground.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:21PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:21PM (#420290) Journal

        The Washington Times is indeed owned by the Moonies, but their editorial and reporting is pretty straightforward Republican, conservative,

        You say that like both of these, Moonies and "straighforward" Republicans, are not just both equally, even identically, batshit crazy, and not to be granted any credibility when they get their hands on a press. Who is running the Republican presidential campaign?

        --
        FatPhil: "F**k me, ran out of all of today's modpoints in just 10 minutes. "
    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:17PM

      by Arik (4543) on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:17PM (#420190) Journal
      I noticed that myself but I don't think you're reading it right. Asians are going around it to avoid the possibility of confrontation. Asians, which by a lot of statistics would seem to be MORE not LESS privileged than whites, and who also statistically tend to major in 'patriarchal' things like math and science, are not automatically considered non-white by the SJWs. Outside of a handful of token asians the two groups seem to view each other with suspicion at best, so of course most of the asians (particularly the males) are going to look at that mess and immediately look for a way around it. Students of any color who are trying to get an education are going to try to avoid a situation like that. And I DID see some black students walk right up and right on through and off to class with only the tiniest interruption to chat with the protestors and bump fists. So looking at the same video I'm really not agreeing with you - doesn't look like bullshit at all.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:19PM (#420192)

        > And I DID see some black students walk right up and right on through and off to class with only the tiniest interruption to chat with the protestors and bump fists.

        Timestamp?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:41PM (#420241)

          Timestamp?

          1m 29s [youtube.com]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:56PM (#420253)

            Hello, that's the caption written by the liar who posted the video.
            Nobody actually says that.
            I didn't realize soybeans were that fucking stupid.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:19PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:19PM (#420289)

              We all see you trying to move the goalposts unnoticed. The issue you demanded timestamps for was not anyone vocalizing anything, but for people of certain appearances being let through the crows of "protesters" with no interference. Your deception is fooling no one.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:31PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:31PM (#420342)

                I was referring to the change in title which reflected the caption at the timestamp.

                The video at the timestamp doesn't actually show what's claimed. The two pairs of girls are not let through, they are let in, but then the video cuts out. In both cases. We never see them pass beyond the line. It would have been a simple matter for the video editor to include that footage. And yet its missing. Weird, huh?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:34PM

      by cubancigar11 (330) on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:34PM (#420240) Homepage Journal

      That's not informative that's mis informative. People are going around because they don't want to be hassled into the staged "protest". Just because non-white people are going around a blockade doesn't mean blockade is not racist in nature, the same way a black or white person sitting in his home doesn't mean the riots on the street are not racially motivated.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:04PM (#420256)

        Wow, you sure are an apologist.

        If the protestors were actually letting non-whites through you'd think the video would show it and then show them continuing on their way. Yet oddly all the video clips of people crossing the line mysteriously end the very second they enter the line. Not a single one of them is shown continuing on past the line. I wonder, why would the video editor deliberately leave out the most damning evidence?

        Oh yeah, because there was no evidence.

        All they've got are a couple of shots of people joining the protest, and if you look closely you can even see the new people chanting. Specifically the girl in the black shirt and black backpack at 1:36.

        • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:35PM

          by cubancigar11 (330) on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:35PM (#420298) Homepage Journal

          I am sorry but you are holding me to a standard of evidence which is higher than than what you have for the protestors. May be you need damning evidence to agree to the anti-white sentiment among sjws but this is not court and I am aware of the long history of anti-cis-white-male-'check your privilege' ideology behind these protests for demanding 'safe-spaces'. Time to take your head out of the sand.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:21AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:21AM (#420374)

            > I am sorry but you are holding me to a standard of evidence which is higher than than what you have for the protestors.

            The standard is for the person making claims about the protestors. He shot the video, he edited the video. He deliberately chose to leave out what should have been the best evidence. I'm not defending the protestors. They may be racist. But the evidence presented is weak as shit. On one hand you have a university official saying the opposite on the record. If he's lying that's his job at risk. On the other hand you've got a nobody with a clear agenda doing a piss poor job of documenting his claims.

            You believe the later because you want to believe it. Not because the evidence is good.

            Give it a week and there will be cell phone footage from other people showing us what this guy left out of his video. 10 to 1 it completely demolishes it. But it won't matter because, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:11PM (#420642)

      Yet another debunking emerges:

      http://www.dailycal.org/2016/10/27/uc-berkeleys-qarc-bridges-student-groups-history-issues-media-misconceptions/ [dailycal.org]

      Many news outlets reported that activists who were part of the protest refused passage to white students attempting to pass through Sather Gate but did not prevent minority students from crossing. Javier said this claim is false.

      “The students of color (were) actually trying to join the line in support — people just didn’t know what they were looking at,” Javier said. “We turned away everyone who came, no matter what race or ethnicity they were … except for people with disabilities.”

      According to campus spokesperson Adam Ratliff, campus representatives have examined the situation and have spoken with eyewitnesses, including police officers, and determined that race did not play a role in the protesters’ interactions with people who attempted to pass through.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:10PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:10PM (#420163)

    People are getting too wrapped up in their own emotional reactions to this counter-prejudice, it is quite amusing to see in a way. These protests are really badly done, with some intelligent yet dumb college kids showing all the wrong ways to go about something.

    What they want is perfectly reasonable, "safe spaces" are really just club houses. They want a room / lounge area where they can gather and discuss the issues they face. They really should re-frame it as a club type thing instead of the weird "safe spaces" concept, that part I don't really get.

    All that said, these Berkeley students are showing a pretty self-important amount of stupidity. They already have a location to gather in, it just got moved to the basement. While that sucks, that is what happens with such things, few student clubs get the penthouse suite with windows overlooking the campus. It sucks to lose that, but be realistic!

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Entropy on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:39PM

      by Entropy (4228) on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:39PM (#420174)

      No, what they really want is for it to be OK to be racist if you're black. On a surprisingly large scale they are getting this nonsense, too.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:44PM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:44PM (#420226)

        Incorrect, you are reading biased news that want to use racial tensions to divide citizens and distract you from the real problems. They play us so well that the most popular stories on SN (for comments anyway) are these political / racial stories that don't even have to do with nerdy topics.

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Sunday October 30 2016, @06:22PM

          by Entropy (4228) on Sunday October 30 2016, @06:22PM (#420585)

          These protests(riots) are based on biased news. Or did you believe the innocent guy that just robbed a convenience store was gunned down by the police just when he was turning his life around? Or did the grand jury find out he tried to take the officer's gun away and got shot while attacking him? It's funny I only saw the just turned his life story around prominently on the news.

          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Sunday October 30 2016, @07:33PM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Sunday October 30 2016, @07:33PM (#420610)

            Wow, you must be shilling real hard for the gov. There was no riot here, why say that? Bringing in a convenience store robbery? Is your point just that stories often have a certain spin on them? Cause I'll go along with that, but in this case the spin is to marginalize the protests and get people as outraged as possible so they forget whatever else they SHOULD be caring about.

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:06PM

      by Arik (4543) on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:06PM (#420186) Journal
      "They really should re-frame it as a club type thing instead of the weird "safe spaces" concept, that part I don't really get."

      You're right, you don't get it. I didn't get it at first either, I thought the same way you do here.

      But actually, after listening to waaaay too many of these people in their own words and doing a little research on the intellectual pedigree of their professors, I was wrong.

      The 'safe space' concept is a key one for them. It's not just a clubhouse or a lounge to discuss their issues. It's a place where they are safe from anyone disagreeing with any of their ideas, a place where if they just think you *look like* you're probably going to disagree with you they can bar you, expel you, etc. preëmptively. A place where only the correct people are allowed, and only the correct thoughts may be expressed. And the plan has never been to get a clubhouse on every campus and then stop, the plan is to expand the safe spaces by any means possible until all space is 'safe.'

      They may say they are in favor of equality, but they can only do that with a straight face because they have redefined equality (and many other key words) to mean the exact opposite of what they mean.

      This is essentially a cult, even if it has more to do with neo-marxism than any 'conventional' religions.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:04PM (#420213)

        It sounds to me [wikipedia.org] like they just want a place to not be harrassed. Naturally you're going to have extremists who, like white supremacists, want black/yellow/trans/homo/whatever supremacy, but don't think for even a second that because a few express a desire for that that all do [wikipedia.org].

        • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:08PM

          by Zz9zZ (1348) on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:08PM (#420215)

          Thank you, I was going to respond but I didn't have good links offhand to backup basically what you said. This is not some racist counter agenda!

          --
          ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:53PM

          by Arik (4543) on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:53PM (#420250) Journal
          And it sounds to me like you're still reading these things in a very naïve fashion.

          From your first link, we learn that a "safe space" is one that "does not tolerate [...] violence, harassment or hate speech."

          This is a carefully constructed formula. We can represent it in pseudocode something like this:

          safe_space(!tolerate{violence|harassment|hate_speech})

          Which logically breaks down to

          safe_space(

          !tolerate{violence}
          !tolerate{harassment}
          !tolerate{hate_speech}

          )

          Now we have !tolerate{violence} already. Violence is literally illegal, from shore to shore, even in Alaska and Hawaii, even in foreign countries! So even though this is the part of the formula put first, the part that is leant on most heavily in rhetoric, to produce sympathy and support (how can you be against them having a space to be safe from violence you ogre?!?!) this part is of no practical effect.

          (We could go further and cite many examples to show that, in fact, they positively approve of violence, as long as it's done by them and not against them, but there's really no need to add to the logic above to make the point.)

          What's next? !tolerate{harassment}. Again, that's actually already illegal. Basically everywhere. So while it sounds great, it's not the point.

          What's left? !tolerate{hate_speech}. And this comes to the crux of the agenda. How do you define hate speech? Lately simply speaking English is considered by many 'activists' to be hate speech. In fact any it's an undefinable term that must and can only be defined on an ad-hoc basis, and so it amounts to criminalizing politically incorrect speech. You can have this, or you can have freedom of speech, but those two things cannot live together.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:53PM (#420316)

            What's next? !tolerate{harassment}. Again, that's actually already illegal. Basically everywhere. So while it sounds great, it's not the point.

            You realize that some of these people have an entirely different definition of "harassment", and that even the most innocuous actions can be construed by them as harassment, right? Also, even existing laws can be too broad.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:53PM (#420361)

            We could go further and cite many examples to show that, in fact, they positively approve of violence, as long as it's done by them and not against them, but there's really no need to add to the logic above to make the point.

            Actually there is a great need to cite those examples because otherwise you don't have a point. Drawing an equivalence between redundancy and outright hypocrisy is literally the exact thing you are complaining that "they" do.

            Jesus christ, that circular reasoning gets modded up? WTF man? This place is freaking racist that such blatant sophistry is considered insightful? No wonder Trump is so popular.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:19AM

              by Arik (4543) on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:19AM (#420396) Journal
              "Actually there is a great need to cite those examples because otherwise you don't have a point."

              No, the point stands perfectly well without the aside. The 'safe space' is defined as an area where we prohibit... a bunch of things already prohibited everywhere else. Oh, and also 'hate speech.' The approach itself, the careful packaging of irrelevancies so that the core demand can be treated as a minor afterthought, reveals conscious deception.

              Anyway you want examples? Melissa Click is a great one. And don't tell me she's one bad apple, because she's received and continues to receive very broad support and in fact astonishingly enough she landed another job at another university almost immediately as a result. Her behavior was exactly in line with what they teach and there are plenty more examples of it in action. Milo Yiannopoulos has been assaulted by them, Lauren Southern has been assaulted by them, many people have been attacked by them.

              Attacking Milo Yiannopoulos on his stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unoBT8Te13g
              Attacking Lauren Southern outside a venue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-IFcCY0m3E

              It's not just high profile lecturers who get hit the most by this though, it's their fellow students who may have to coexist with them for years, it's the poor janitors and professors that have to deal with them every day at work, it's random people that have to deal with this in their day to day lives.

              This is a good example. Notice that this is NOT a case where someone was doing something they knew was wrong and got caught at it. This lady recorded herself. She posted it herself. She thinks she's being virtuous here (because that's what her professors taught her to think.)

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpvnO0p9KvU

              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @10:24PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @10:24PM (#420675)

                > Attacking Milo Yiannopoulos on his stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unoBT8Te13g [youtube.com]

                She grabbed the microphone and danced in his face. You consider that violence?
                Are you really that fragile?

                > Attacking Lauren Southern outside a venue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-IFcCY0m3E [youtube.com]

                She grabs something and then the video is mysteriously black. What did she grab? Was it hers to begin with?

                > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpvnO0p9KvU [youtube.com]

                There wasn't any contact in there at all. And you consider that violence? WTH?

                Seems like all of your examples more of the same as the original video - because in your heart of hearts you absolutely know that SJWs are all hypocrites so anything that might possibly be construed to prove that becomes definitive proof. But really, if those are your best examples of hypocrisy, you've pretty much disproved your entire thesis.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @07:27PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @07:27PM (#420609)

              Ya, welcome to this place. Some hard corr libertarian/conservative weirdness going on. I like the pro-freedom stance that most here hold, but there is a definite undercurrent of... Not sure what to call it. Not quite racism, but super sensitive easily triggered people when it comes toliberal/hippy/progressive things they don't have any idea about.

              Half of me thinks they are paid agitators trying to being down a decent community, but in reality its probably just users that are in their own conservative echo chamber. Video evidence isn't enough, and explained away so Ariks(?) can maintain his viewpoint.... The worst type of "thinking" that we routinely mock around here... He just wants to feel righteously angry about counter racism and won't accept that this is not what is happening.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @10:12PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @10:12PM (#420671)

                there is a definite undercurrent of... Not sure what to call it. Not quite racism, but super sensitive easily triggered people when it comes toliberal/hippy/progressive things they don't have any idea about.

                Its called "white fragility." [goodmenproject.com] Of course part of it is denying that it exists.
                Its kind of like a fish disbelieving that the entire universe isn't actually filled with water.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:53PM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:53PM (#420231)

        You paint with a very large brush. I did my own research and you are basically describing the crazy minority of these groups. It is very hard for someone that doesn't share a marginalized position in society to understand what it is like. Personally I tend to be optimistic, hoping that some nasty bullshit was more of a mis-understanding. To use a more easily understood example, imagine a rape victim sitting with a friend at the local coffee shop talking quietly about what happened. Someone overhears a bit of it and chimes in with "Well you shouldn't go out to parties and walk back alone." While that may be true advice it is a terrible time to offer it and can easily send the victim into a depression for days.

        This same sort of thing happens all the time to anyone with a marginalized viewpoint. Half the people on this site should understand, try talking to an average person about the depths of government spying and see how quickly they treat you like a diseased crazy person. Soylentnews is our safe space (haha). So that is what safe spaces are about, its not excluding based on race, its including based on shared experiences. I guarantee that the majority of people in such spaces would welcome a white person if there was a legitimate plea. Maybe some white kid grew up in the ghetto and all his friends were black and he feels a bit isolated at the predominantly white/asian university, 10:1 bet that he would quickly have a new group of friends.

        That you call this a cult reveals your own failings, you and many on this site are like academics sitting in their towers trying to understand the world they never experience.

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 2) by BK on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:46PM

          by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:46PM (#420309)

          You paint with a very large brush. I did my own research and you are basically describing the crazy minority of these groups.

          Those 'crazy minority groups' so often end up setting the agenda.

          --
          ...but you HAVE heard of me.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:51PM (#420314)

          Soylent is our safe space. We all gather 'round, and watch as Aristarchus beats up anyone whose views are different from his.

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:03AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:03AM (#420369) Journal

            Shut the fuck up, Donny! Go around!!

            --
            FatPhil: "F**k me, ran out of all of today's modpoints in just 10 minutes. "
        • (Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:02PM

          by Arik (4543) on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:02PM (#420496) Journal
          It's impossible to meaningfully characterize any movement without using a fairly broad brush. But make no mistake, this is a movement, it's pretty cohesive, it has quite distinct characteristics as a movement, and those who do do not share those characteristics do not cohere and do not adhere for long. It's only fair when discussing any movement to focus on the core characteristics, no?

          Similarly, when you say: "It is very hard for someone that doesn't share a marginalized position in society to understand what it is like" that's actually quite true.

          And don't assume you know my position, or can gauge my sympathies, without evidence. I call them a cult as a result of seeing cult-like behavior and seeing the teachers and leaders rationalize and justify that behavior instead of drawing back from it. Just because someone paints themselves as a defender of the downtrodden and 'marginalized' doesn't necessarily make it so.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Sunday October 30 2016, @07:38PM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Sunday October 30 2016, @07:38PM (#420611)

            Some good points, but you're still running with the spin on this story as if it is true. This was a well done protest that is not about racism, its about people wanting a shared cultural space on campus. There are Jewish/Black/Engineering/RichKid fraternities/sororities, I don't see you getting upset about those. There are clubs specifically for certain activities, shall we call them all bigots because they exclude other activities?

            You're complaining about a very minor thing, and why should I not assume to know your position based upon short statements? You're doing it with this story, crying racism where there actually isn't any (except for probably a minority of the protesters, but that goes for any large group).

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
            • (Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday October 30 2016, @08:27PM

              by Arik (4543) on Sunday October 30 2016, @08:27PM (#420626) Journal

              "Some good points, but you're still running with the spin on this story as if it is true. "

              It does still appear to be *roughly* accurate.

              "This was a well done protest that is not about racism, its about people wanting a shared cultural space on campus."

              Actually it was about them being unhappy with the space allocated to them, and demanding a better space.

              And calling it a 'well done protest' is truly offensive, as someone that's been part of well done protests, someone that's faced police violence for protesting when I didn't block anyone from passing, didn't threaten anyone either verbally or non verbally, when in other words I was actually part of a well done protest. This does not look like one to me. You have a right to protest in a public space but you do NOT have the right to physically block other people who have just as much right to pass as you do to protest. That's not 'well done' at all. This didn't look like a protest to me, it looked like something rather sinister in fact.

              "There are Jewish/Black/Engineering/RichKid fraternities/sororities, I don't see you getting upset about those."

              Show me one that's physically blocking a public path because they think they deserve more space?

              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:42PM

      by Zz9zZ (1348) on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:42PM (#420224)

      After searching around it seems that there is a definite agenda to the news reporting, and it seems pretty clear. Stoke the racial tensions in the US with clickbait headlines about racism against white people. I found one article earlier which quoted a dean saying roughly, "The protesters are blocking everyone, not just whites and asians. The people let through were supporters of the protest who joined the line."

      So there you have it (god I wish I could find the link, but all I get are trash sites hyping fear and anger), a dean saying this isn't a race based protest. If you watch the video you will see asians being let into the line to join the protest, so the whole whites/asians bit is verifiable to be wrong. Also, a good portion of the protest is against the for-profit motives of administration by renting out campus space to merchants. That I can totally get behind, schools should not be about profit.

      I previously said this protest is stupid, but I take that back. The "inconvenience" to others was a whopping few minutes tops to walk alternate paths. We are being fed a narrative that the only type of protesting that is acceptable is one where people get permits and don't inconvenience anyone in the slightest. I guess we're all going to ignore history then and pretend like the only protests that accomplished anything were done in a fenced off "free speech zone".

      The reactionaries on this site are totally missing the point by not digging further. I was a bit guilty of this myself before I did some more research, realized they are not excluding whites and asians like the articles want to promote. Unwanted minority groups are often marginalized through lots of little moves and the only way to stop it is with such protests. I much prefer they do this than trash / vandalize the campus.

      TLDR: The media is massively spinning this to whip up racial tensions and the protests are not actually about race. Safe spaces are like clubs, AA, or any other support group.

      --
      ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:30AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:30AM (#420378)

        The "inconvenience" to others was a whopping few minutes tops to walk alternate paths.

        FWIW, when I was a student, I knew how long it took me to get from point A to point B on campus, and rarely arrived at class more than 2 minutes early; "a whopping few minutes" of unexpected delay could well have seen me late for class, and while that's not a big deal in the big picture, the younger, dumber version of me would have been hopping mad.

        We are being fed a narrative that the only type of protesting that is acceptable is one where people get permits and don't inconvenience anyone in the slightest.

        If you're saying that negative coverage of this protest is promoting that narrative, that's a false dichotomy. There's more options than blocking a bridge (regardless of how near or far the alternate paths are) and getting a permit for a "free speech zone" protest. You could, for example, line up along one side of the bridge, so people can still get by on the bridge, but have to hear your chants and walk right by your signs.

        If you just meant that there's an effort to push that narrative in general, of course there is, and I agree it's a problem, but don't see the connection to this particular protest.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:49PM (#420313)

      with some intelligent yet dumb college kids showing all the wrong ways to go about something.

      You really didn't need the word "intelligent".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:11PM (#420189)

    College campuses are the strongest argument for distance learning I can imagine.

    From all the professionally butthurt, to the corrupt administrations, to the sheer incompetence at teaching so frequently on display ...

    I'd rather study damn near any topic at my local public library, with the kind assistance of a research librarian and interlibrary loans. If I want a book for keeps, there's Amazon.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:38PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:38PM (#420203) Journal

      The smartest guy i met in grad school was an autodidact like that. He had only gone to community college to get his "piece of paper," not because he couldn't have gone someplace else but because there the piece of paper only cost him a couple hundred bucks. He had enormous self-discipline, though, and a native love of learning. The former is not really instilled by government-mandated education and the latter is all too often beaten out of kids before they've reached middle school.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by BK on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:43PM

    by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:43PM (#420205)

    Zz9zZ said:

    What they want is perfectly reasonable, "safe spaces" are really just club houses.

    I want a safe space for white people. Maybe one for white and male people... Maybe a golf course? Do I really want that?

    It is pretty difficult now in the USA to have a private club wiht exclusivity along racial lines. Oh they exist, but they are rarer by the month. Usually, we count this decline as a good thing. we say that these things are racist or sexist or [foo]ist and have no place in an inclusive (at least officially) society.

    These folks at UCLA (or UCB?) want something that is actually illegal though (imo - ianal) - racial [or foo] exclusivity in public accommodation. Segregation based on appearance. That's like having racially exclusive seating or drinking fountains or lunch counters [si.edu]. Actually, it's worse than that - they want segregation in publicly funded public accommodation.

    This is not a trivial thing. This is not kids being kids [freep.com]. Or if it is, it deserves to not be treated as such. People have lost [thefire.org] their jobs [nytimes.com] over this sort of thing - and recently. If there was a counter-protest would it be a problem? What if "klansmen" - real or fake - took part? Maybe kids can't just be kids anymore. Maybe we can't handle it.

    We have pictures - the days of ubiquitous cameras are on us. Pictures can show bad cops. Pictures can show bad students. The students taking part should be kicked out of UCLA or whatever school they are in. We should use the photos to find them all. They should fail their classes for the term. ...and be allowed to seek readmission in the spring or maybe next fall if they can demonstrate learning. Anything short of this demonstrates public(ly funded) tolerance of intolerance. Which is intolerable.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:04PM (#420212)

      These folks at UCLA (or UCB?) want something that is actually illegal though (imo - ianal) - racial [or foo] exclusivity in public accommodation. Segregation based on appearance

      You are a sucker, aren't you?
      Who told you that? Why did you believe them? Eh? Because it is what you wanted to believe. So you didn't bother to question, to doubt. It gave you the good feels, didn't it? You gotta watch out for that shit. When people tell you things that give you the good feels, they are coning you.

      This living-learning community focuses on academic excellence and learning experiences that are inclusive and non-discriminatory. This community is open to all students. [snopes.com]

      Sucker!

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by BK on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:52PM

        by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:52PM (#420229)

        Just doublespeak [propublica.org] friend.

        --
        ...but you HAVE heard of me.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:20PM (#420235)

          WTF does facebook have to do with lies about housing discrimination?

          You aren't my friend. You are just a bigot who indulges in random red herrings because he can't make principled case for his bigotry.

          • (Score: 2) by BK on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:56PM

            by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 29 2016, @09:56PM (#420276)

            You are just a bigot

            You're just an ignoramus who doesn't know how to use contractions.

            Public accommodation is not just housing. A public accommodation [wikipedia.org] is just about any facility used by the public. Stores. Universities (and their facilities). And in today's case, a bridge.

            My link about Facebook's doublespeak should sound eerily familiar to the explanations offered by UCLA in your link. They're both trying to hide behind the same fig leaf.

            --
            ...but you HAVE heard of me.
            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:11PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:11PM (#420283)

              > My link about Facebook's doublespeak should sound eerily familiar to the explanations offered by UCLA in your link.

              Only to someone who wants to hear similarities.
              On one hand you have UCLA saying, "Anybody who likes this culture is welcome" and on the other hand you have facebook saying, "you can discriminate based on race."

              And to you, those are the same thing because in the mind of the bigot anyone talking about bigotry is automatically the bigot.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:50PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:50PM (#420208)

    Safe spaces for people of different color, race, gender, sex, political affiliation, religion, country of origin, native language, secondary language, age, height, weight, music and fashion preferences are under-reaching. What the protestors should be demanding is personalized safe spaces. Ideally, ones that they own. I even found an obscure dictionary reference for such a space. It's called a "house" and alternatively a "home".

    Maybe the problem here is that it's less socially acceptable to demonstrate for free housing then to demonstrate for a Roger De Bris production... Either way, they better off demonstrating on the bridge then living bellow it.

    --
    compiling...
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:50PM (#420247)

    I would consider that a failure of the administration to teach those children what segregation is. They have renamed it and gave it a more 'hip' name to distance itself from what it is. But segregation is segregation. Seems to be a standard tactic of people who want to do shitty things. Rename a thing and say its not 'really' that other thing.

    I described this to an old man in his 90s. Know what fell out of his mouth? "that sounds like good ol segregation to me". These people want to dismantle what our parents spent the 50s and 60s put in place. All because they might feel uncomfortable.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by f4r on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:19AM

    by f4r (4515) on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:19AM (#420373)
    Why not a counter-protest, only dress up as klansmen and hold signs saying "keep white and black separate" and whatnot. It's the exact same message. And it would be funny as hell.
    --
    Do not use as directed.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @05:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @05:19AM (#420440)

    In addition to being a capstone of education for somewhat (or very) privileged kids, it is also adulthood with training wheels. Kids learn to organize activities for themselves with essentially no adult supervision unless something goes badly amiss.

    If that sounds funky, it is. It's a nether zone where laws are applicable but enforcement is spotty, unless someone goes against the cultural grain of the university, e.g. practices overt racism. Other than that, the kids are given wide latitude by the administration.

    So, in summary, this type of story is only a big deal to the students doing the protesting, and to the administrators who have to listen to their demands and deal with them. Nobody else cares. Other students were forced to walk around the protest - BFD. That must've cost them 30 seconds each.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:19PM (#420644)

      Other students were forced to walk around the protest - BFD. That must've cost them 30 seconds each.

      Colored people were forced to sit in the back of the bus - BFD. That must've cost them 30 seconds each.