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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Informative=3, Funny=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (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?

      --
      "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"
  • (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.