Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday October 29 2016, @02:53PM   Printer-friendly
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This discussion has been archived.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) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=4, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (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) Journal

      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) Journal

          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) Journal

              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.

          --
          "Trust the science" -- Tony Fauci and his army of psycophants
          • (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.

              --
              "Trust the science" -- Tony Fauci and his army of psycophants
              • (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.

                  --
                  "Trust the science" -- Tony Fauci and his army of psycophants
                  • (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.

                      --
                      "Trust the science" -- Tony Fauci and his army of psycophants
                      • (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.

                          --
                          "Trust the science" -- Tony Fauci and his army of psycophants
            • (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) Journal

          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.