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This discussion has been archived.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: -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]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (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.