• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protesters storm NYU over conservative speaker’s seminar

EnigmaO01 said:
Some day soon we won't be allowed to protest even peacefully and politicians will run rough shod over all of us.
Click to expand...

Well, you could go to extreme lengths and try protesting peacefully after the other guy has spoken.
 
Grim17 said:
Liberal activists have turned to violence once again, in an attempt to stifle opinions they disagree with and shut down free speech. We saw this the other night at Berkley and this time it was at NYU.

I guess this is now the new norm for the progressive movement, who seem desperate since Trump was elected to shut down anyone who disagrees with their political views.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me but I'm more concerned with fascist tendencies of the government (y'know, the people in charge and who make decisions) over people expressing their right to protest.
 
Ikari said:
Oh, I had to turn the volume off, too much cursing for lunch time office stuffs. Yeah, Professors definitely need to be more adult as well. I can understand people being upset with Trump being president and worried about where we are going to end up. But political discourse takes calm, rational, intelligent interaction in order to move forward. And at this stage of hyperpartisan nonsense and when emotions are frazzled and high, we need to take a step back, breathe deeply, and come back at the issue from a more intelligent position so that we can have some say, and that we can control government action, and still respect the rights and liberties of others.
Click to expand...

Did America gain independence through calm rational interaction? Did women achieve the right to vote through calm rational interaction? Did blacks? What about homosexuals right to marry?

Calm, rational interaction is of course the ideal and preferable tool to achieve political progression, but let's not pretend that such progress does not sometimes need real action behind it.
 
Ikari said:
Oh, I had to turn the volume off, too much cursing for lunch time office stuffs. Yeah, Professors definitely need to be more adult as well. I can understand people being upset with Trump being president and worried about where we are going to end up. But political discourse takes calm, rational, intelligent interaction in order to move forward. And at this stage of hyperpartisan nonsense and when emotions are frazzled and high, we need to take a step back, breathe deeply, and come back at the issue from a more intelligent position so that we can have some say, and that we can control government action, and still respect the rights and liberties of others.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.. but obviously a lot of leftist types believe that your standard conservatives are Neo nazi fascists. That's a tough place to start a reasonable conversation from.
 
Grim17 said:
Here's the root of the problem.... Skip to the 10:20 mark and hear what a college professor has to say at this protest. It's one of the greatest liberal meltdowns i've seen since Trump was sworn in.


Click to expand...


Thank you. I will suggest to my American grandsons that best avoid NYU. It is time that the younger one starts thinking about college - he will be 2 on Sunday and will have therefore have reached the same mental age as the lady professor in this enlightening video.
 
Nilly said:
Maybe it's just me but I'm more concerned with fascist tendencies of the government (y'know, the people in charge and who make decisions) over people expressing their right to protest.
Click to expand...

What "fascist tendencies" are you dreaming up now? Early in my long life I had some experience of fascists. You know real live ones, not figments of overwrought imaginations.
 
Nilly said:
Did America gain independence through calm rational interaction?
Click to expand...

American maintained its independence though rational interaction. How do you think we developed our system of government? Yes, we revolted against British rule, but to create a political system and government that has lasted took a lot of debate. Tempers flared, but in the end it was argument and debate and compromise that drove the development of the US Constitution and the creation of our government. We wouldn't have been able to maintain independence without a proper government to support us.

Nilly said:
Did women achieve the right to vote through calm rational interaction?
Click to expand...

Was the woman's suffrage movement burning down buildings and rioting? There was violence that was aimed at them, but theirs was a movement of information, public demonstration, and protest that wasn't fundamentally built upon rioting and destruction.

Nilly said:
Did blacks?
Click to expand...

The Civil war to end slavery, or the Civil Rights movement? Civil Rights were advanced through protest, debate, and political discourse. The violence didn't change the laws or the minds of the population, and the violence wasn't always on the part of those protesting, but those "protesting" the protesters. Violence in and of itself isn't going to create structures or change laws or positively influence public opinion for the most part.

Now if you want to revolt, then violence can be used to accomplish that task, but I am under the impression that an actual revolt, wherein we're seeking the overthrow of the government, isn't really the point outside the nutjob anarchists.

Nilly said:
Calm, rational interaction is of course the ideal and preferable tool to achieve political progression, but let's not pretend that such progress does not sometimes need real action behind it.
Click to expand...

Within the system, that's what's going to change things. In fact, the violence will tend to have the opposite effect. People can be mad, and get into heated debates, but rioting and looting isn't going to bring about a solution to a political means, it may even make it harder. And much of the violence in previous political movements wasn't necessary on the side of those leading the protests, but as intimidation against the protesters; to get them to stop protesting.

What's the end goal here. If it's just to be triggered and scream at police, fine. But there's nothing to come from that end. If they seek to influence the system, perhaps slow Trump's roll as it were, or otherwise influence the government, then they need to politic, not riot.

Violence has been used, can be used; but for very specific things through which it is useful and successful. Outside of that, violence tends to be counter-productive.
 
Sweden said:
What "fascist tendencies" are you dreaming up now? Early in my long life I had some experience of fascists. You know real live ones, not figments of overwrought imaginations.
Click to expand...

If the liberals in this video are being labelled as fascists (which they are, in this very thread) then by comparison our administration is rife with it.
 
Hypothetical said:
I agree completely.. but obviously a lot of leftist types believe that your standard conservatives are Neo nazi fascists. That's a tough place to start a reasonable conversation from.
Click to expand...

I think the extremes on both sides are starting from places that make reasonable conversation difficult.
 
joG said:
I wonder, if they realize the implications of employing violence to attain domestic political goals instead of debate.
Click to expand...



Watch at about 10:30....Professor meltdown.....These people are an American embarrassment....
 
Ikari said:
American maintained its independence though rational interaction. How do you think we developed our system of government? Yes, we revolted against British rule, but to create a political system and government that has lasted took a lot of debate. Tempers flared, but in the end it was argument and debate and compromise that drove the development of the US Constitution and the creation of our government. We wouldn't have been able to maintain independence without a proper government to support us.



Was the woman's suffrage movement burning down buildings and rioting? There was violence that was aimed at them, but theirs was a movement of information, public demonstration, and protest that wasn't fundamentally built upon rioting and destruction.



The Civil war to end slavery, or the Civil Rights movement? Civil Rights were advanced through protest, debate, and political discourse. The violence didn't change the laws or the minds of the population, and the violence wasn't always on the part of those protesting, but those "protesting" the protesters. Violence in and of itself isn't going to create structures or change laws or positively influence public opinion for the most part.

Now if you want to revolt, then violence can be used to accomplish that task, but I am under the impression that an actual revolt, wherein we're seeking the overthrow of the government, isn't really the point outside the nutjob anarchists.



Within the system, that's what's going to change things. In fact, the violence will tend to have the opposite effect. People can be mad, and get into heated debates, but rioting and looting isn't going to bring about a solution to a political means, it may even make it harder. And much of the violence in previous political movements wasn't necessary on the side of those leading the protests, but as intimidation against the protesters; to get them to stop protesting.

What's the end goal here. If it's just to be triggered and scream at police, fine. But there's nothing to come from that end. If they seek to influence the system, perhaps slow Trump's roll as it were, or otherwise influence the government, then they need to politic, not riot.

Violence has been used, can be used; but for very specific things through which it is useful and successful. Outside of that, violence tends to be counter-productive.
Click to expand...

I agree with this post 100%, Ikari.
 
Ikari said:
American maintained its independence though rational interaction. How do you think we developed our system of government? Yes, we revolted against British rule, but to create a political system and government that has lasted took a lot of debate. Tempers flared, but in the end it was argument and debate and compromise that drove the development of the US Constitution and the creation of our government. We wouldn't have been able to maintain independence without a proper government to support us.

Was the woman's suffrage movement burning down buildings and rioting? There was violence that was aimed at them, but theirs was a movement of information, public demonstration, and protest that wasn't fundamentally built upon rioting and destruction.

The Civil war to end slavery, or the Civil Rights movement? Civil Rights were advanced through protest, debate, and political discourse. The violence didn't change the laws or the minds of the population, and the violence wasn't always on the part of those protesting, but those "protesting" the protesters. Violence in and of itself isn't going to create structures or change laws or positively influence public opinion for the most part.

Now if you want to revolt, then violence can be used to accomplish that task, but I am under the impression that an actual revolt, wherein we're seeking the overthrow of the government, isn't really the point outside the nutjob anarchists.

Within the system, that's what's going to change things. In fact, the violence will tend to have the opposite effect. People can be mad, and get into heated debates, but rioting and looting isn't going to bring about a solution to a political means, it may even make it harder. And much of the violence in previous political movements wasn't necessary on the side of those leading the protests, but as intimidation against the protesters; to get them to stop protesting.

What's the end goal here. If it's just to be triggered and scream at police, fine. But there's nothing to come from that end. If they seek to influence the system, perhaps slow Trump's roll as it were, or otherwise influence the government, then they need to politic, not riot.

Violence has been used, can be used; but for very specific things through which it is useful and successful. Outside of that, violence tends to be counter-productive.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. The two options aren't calm interaction vs burning down buildings, but there is an in between.

You said:

I can understand people being upset with Trump being president and worried about where we are going to end up. But political discourse takes calm, rational, intelligent interaction in order to move forward. And at this stage of hyperpartisan nonsense and when emotions are frazzled and high, we need to take a step back, breathe deeply, and come back at the issue from a more intelligent position so that we can have some say, and that we can control government action, and still respect the rights and liberties of others.
Click to expand...

Protesting in the streets isn't what I would consider calm rational interaction. But neither is it necessarily violent.

I'm not advocating for violence, I'm advocating for protest. And by and large the protests against Trump (including the one in the video that the quote thread originally discusses) have been non-violent. There are, of course, pockets of violence, but I imagine there were similar pockets of violence in the suffrage movement, the civil rights movement etc etc (not that I was around then).

At the end of the day, non-violence is certainly something to strive for, the ideal, but protest has been one of the most powerful tools of advancement in western society. You don't achieve change without upsetting the apple cart.
 
Grim17 said:
Here's the root of the problem.... Skip to the 10:20 mark and hear what a college professor has to say at this protest. It's one of the greatest liberal meltdowns i've seen since Trump was sworn in.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting that. I love how she is concerned about the nazi's hatred.. while she espouses hatred. Of course she and those on the left won't see it.. still.. effing hilarious.
 
Nilly said:
If the liberals in this video are being labelled as fascists (which they are, in this very thread) then by comparison our administration is rife with it.
Click to expand...


I have not called anyone in this video fascist - certainly not the poor professor with mental issues. 'Do not mock the afflicted' has always been my by-word.

Question: Is psychotic behaviour contagious? Can it be passed from professor to student?
 
Ikari said:
I think the extremes on both sides are starting from places that make reasonable conversation difficult.
Click to expand...

fair enough then... what rightist extremism are you speaking of?
 
Nilly said:
Maybe it's just me but I'm more concerned with fascist tendencies of the government (y'know, the people in charge and who make decisions) over people expressing their right to protest.
Click to expand...

It isn't the protesting that's the problem... It's the violence accompanying the protests.
 
Chomsky said:
I agree. Trump can't seem to figure out how to quell it, and he needs to do something.
Click to expand...

I am sure when, and if the point ever comes that the President has to get involved, then liberals will lose their mind about that too....It isn't up to Trump to quell anything. It should be those liberal adults like the professor that melted down on the cops in the video I posted that should be turning the heat down. Instead she isn't any better than the spoiled little communists protesting....
 
Grim17 said:
It isn't the protesting that's the problem... It's the violence accompanying the protests.
Click to expand...

TheGoverness said:
Yup. Violence is where it's crossing the line.
Click to expand...

Which is where? That video of the 'crazy professor', what is she burning or looting? The article that you posted has little mention of violence (except the violence directed at protestors by the cops, and a guy in a MAGA hat - not sure which side he was on -throwing a punch). Unless you consider lighting hats on fire violent. You're the ones projecting violence onto this situation, where as far as I can see, very little happened.

There are pockets of violence in protests everywhere. There are pockets of violence on any night out in the US. There are pockets of violence when the cubs win the world series. The violence does not define those events, and it does not define these protests. Again, most Trump protests have been pretty non-violent.

Lets not pretend that some of the greatest historical strides taken by America were without the force of protest behind them. Because they weren't.
 
Nilly said:
Protesting in the streets isn't what I would consider calm rational interaction. But neither is it necessarily violent.
Click to expand...

OK, I don't see anything that is inherently irrational about protest, and it can be done is a calm, coherent manner as well. And even if people are upset or heated about certain events, it doesn't mean the protest is some chaotic demonstration of screaming incoherence. So perhaps it's a difference in terms.

Nilly said:
I'm not advocating for violence, I'm advocating for protest. And by and large the protests against Trump (including the one in the video that the quote thread originally discusses) have been non-violent. There are, of course, pockets of violence, but I imagine there were similar pockets of violence in the suffrage movement, the civil rights movement etc etc (not that I was around then).

At the end of the day, non-violence is certainly something to strive for, the ideal, but protest has been one of the most powerful tools of advancement in western society. You don't achieve change without upsetting the apple cart.
Click to expand...

Protest is a time honored right of the people and must be upheld, and engaged in. Coherent protest, "calm" protest, intelligent protest has even greater ability to promote positive change. Violence is generally unacceptable and counter-productive to protest, and if aggregated and proliferated can also cause reaction from government and authority which curtails our access to free exercise of peaceful protest.
 
Nilly said:
Which is where? That video of the 'crazy professor', what is she burning or looting? The article that you posted has little mention of violence (except the violence directed at protestors by the cops, and a guy in a MAGA hat - not sure which side he was on -throwing a punch). Unless you consider lighting hats on fire violent. You're the ones projecting violence onto this situation, where as far as I can see, very little happened.

There are pockets of violence in protests everywhere. There are pockets of violence on any night out in the US. There are pockets of violence when the cubs win the world series. The violence does not define those events, and it does not define these protests. Again, most Trump protests have been pretty non-violent.

Lets not pretend that some of the greatest historical strides taken by America were without the force of protest behind them. Because they weren't.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/redir...storm-nyu-over-conservative-speakers-seminar/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom