Topic: Libtard college students riot to stop someone from speaking at their university.
Anonymous A started this discussion 9 years ago #59,465
"Protest organiser Yvette Felarca defended the demonstration, describing the actions of students as "self defence".
"We have the right to defend ourselves," she said, adding: "This shutting down Milo Yiannopoulos, and doing whatever's necessary to do that, is our right to self-defence."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38837142
My question for this precious snowflake, assuming I'm allowed to ask her in her safe space: self defence against what??? Ideas you don't like? Sorry sweetheart, but that's not how a free society operates. Protesting is fine, explaining why you don't want him to speak is fine, but trashing the college campus? Threatening violence?
Fucking dumb liberal fascists.
"We have the right to defend ourselves," she said, adding: "This shutting down Milo Yiannopoulos, and doing whatever's necessary to do that, is our right to self-defence."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38837142
My question for this precious snowflake, assuming I'm allowed to ask her in her safe space: self defence against what??? Ideas you don't like? Sorry sweetheart, but that's not how a free society operates. Protesting is fine, explaining why you don't want him to speak is fine, but trashing the college campus? Threatening violence?
Fucking dumb liberal fascists.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #756,650
Apparently one Trump supporter got killed during the protest.
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 14 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #756,652
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 38 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #756,653
@756,650 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
I'm not surprised. They label everyone they disagree with as fascist, then they tell each other its okay to be violent against them because they are fascist.
They are like babies, no words just screaming and hitting, oh and some name calling.
I'm not surprised. They label everyone they disagree with as fascist, then they tell each other its okay to be violent against them because they are fascist.
They are like babies, no words just screaming and hitting, oh and some name calling.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #756,655
@756,652 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
On this occasion you're right, this stuff pisses me off. The eroding of freedom and the protections of the 1st Amendment by a group of shrill hyper-sensitive fascists angers me. "Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" said George Carlin, and the progressive left is exemplifying this. I know you didn't want this kind of response Doc, but whatever, you got it.
On this occasion you're right, this stuff pisses me off. The eroding of freedom and the protections of the 1st Amendment by a group of shrill hyper-sensitive fascists angers me. "Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" said George Carlin, and the progressive left is exemplifying this. I know you didn't want this kind of response Doc, but whatever, you got it.
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #756,658
@previous (A)You use the British spelling of the word "defense". Why do you care about the American constitution?
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 28 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #756,662
@756,655 (A)
uh the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from someone disagreeing with you. it protects you from the government. the 1st amendment doesn't somehow make criticising you unconstitutional.
and students are allowed to protest someone speaking at their university, since that is an implicit endorsement of the speaker by the university
uh the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from someone disagreeing with you. it protects you from the government. the 1st amendment doesn't somehow make criticising you unconstitutional.
and students are allowed to protest someone speaking at their university, since that is an implicit endorsement of the speaker by the university
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,663
also
it was a peaceful protest
until 150 masked agitators (black-bloc?) arrived and took advantage of the situation
ain't nothin wrong with a good ol peaceful protest
it was a peaceful protest
until 150 masked agitators (black-bloc?) arrived and took advantage of the situation
ain't nothin wrong with a good ol peaceful protest
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,665
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,666
@previous (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
huh i'm just saying the headline is incorrect
the students were by and large peaceful protestors
the violence came from radical anarchist(?) groups in berkeley unaffiliated with the university
huh i'm just saying the headline is incorrect
the students were by and large peaceful protestors
the violence came from radical anarchist(?) groups in berkeley unaffiliated with the university
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,668
@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
If the University doesn't reverse it's forbidding of discussion, then they are endorsing the very same violence.
If the University doesn't reverse it's forbidding of discussion, then they are endorsing the very same violence.
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,669
@previous (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
well
according to the uni, they cancelled it for yiannopoulos' own safety
well
according to the uni, they cancelled it for yiannopoulos' own safety
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,670
@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
That does tell you something about the opposition to him does it not?
That does tell you something about the opposition to him does it not?
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,671
@previous (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
.... that radical anarchist groups showed up and fucked shit up? like i just said?
.... that radical anarchist groups showed up and fucked shit up? like i just said?
beckyderp !yDoooooooo joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,672
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,673
@756,671 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
I think it means that the people who are against discussion and people who use violence are more similar then you think.
I think it means that the people who are against discussion and people who use violence are more similar then you think.
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,674
@previous (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
it's totally valid for students to not want their tuition money to go to a guy like milo and thus protest his speaking there
not wanting to a pay a guy who's an utter dumb fuck to speak isn't the same as not wanting discussion lol
it's totally valid for students to not want their tuition money to go to a guy like milo and thus protest his speaking there
not wanting to a pay a guy who's an utter dumb fuck to speak isn't the same as not wanting discussion lol
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,675
@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
lol yeah it was all about concerns of their tuition fees. Come on.
lol yeah it was all about concerns of their tuition fees. Come on.
beckyderp !yDoooooooo replied with this 9 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,676
Ugh Christ
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-breitbart-news-remove-federal-funding-berkeley-university-california-milo-yiannopoulos-a7558946.html
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 4 hours ago
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-breitbart-news-remove-federal-funding-berkeley-university-california-milo-yiannopoulos-a7558946.html
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 4 hours ago
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,677
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E double-posted this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,679
Trump supporter gets pepper sprayed just after giving congratulations on peaceful protesters.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=x643kcoc8FU
https://youtube.com/watch?v=x643kcoc8FU
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,680
@756,677 (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
So you think a university should lose federal funds because it didn't stop a student protest? You do understand that doing that WOULD be a clear cut 1A violation right?
So you think a university should lose federal funds because it didn't stop a student protest? You do understand that doing that WOULD be a clear cut 1A violation right?
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,681
@756,677 (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
hahahaha yes a public university should lose its funding because of a student (and non student) protest right yes that makes sense
hahahaha yes a public university should lose its funding because of a student (and non student) protest right yes that makes sense
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,682
@756,680 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If their students are as trump described, then yes. If they cannot protect people and uphold free speech, sure.
If their students are as trump described, then yes. If they cannot protect people and uphold free speech, sure.
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,683
@756,681 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
"hahahaha" so funny and yes. Would you be in favor of tax dollars going to the education of students like these?
"hahahaha" so funny and yes. Would you be in favor of tax dollars going to the education of students like these?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,684
@756,682 (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
So the university now also has to police rallies instead of like...the police? And if non-students cause violence and the police don't prevent it, the university loses funding? Do you realize what a retarded chain of ideas this is?
So the university now also has to police rallies instead of like...the police? And if non-students cause violence and the police don't prevent it, the university loses funding? Do you realize what a retarded chain of ideas this is?
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,685
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
They themselves said they failed to uphold free speech. You want a school that fails that to be funded?
They themselves said they failed to uphold free speech. You want a school that fails that to be funded?
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,686
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,687
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,688
@previous (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
most of the violent protestors weren't students
they were radical anarchist groups in berkeley
as i have said now 3 times
most of the violent protestors weren't students
they were radical anarchist groups in berkeley
as i have said now 3 times
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,689
@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Yes and they have been violent to trump supporters and disrupted the school so much that they failed to uphold free speech. When a school can't uphold it, even though no fault of its own, it's questionable to fund it.
It's like funding a school that can't adequately provide safety to their students.
Yes and they have been violent to trump supporters and disrupted the school so much that they failed to uphold free speech. When a school can't uphold it, even though no fault of its own, it's questionable to fund it.
It's like funding a school that can't adequately provide safety to their students.
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,690
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 35 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,691
@756,689 (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
What do you think the school should have done?
What do you think the school should have done?
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,693
@756,690 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Like i said. Even if it's not their fault. I wouldn't fund a school next to a landmine territory, I wouldn't fund Berkley.
If I actually had money that is....
Like i said. Even if it's not their fault. I wouldn't fund a school next to a landmine territory, I wouldn't fund Berkley.
If I actually had money that is....
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E double-posted this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,694
@756,691 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well for starters I don't think their students should have protested their free speech policy. But like I said. If they are in a area where they can't provide free speech, then they should not get funded.
Well for starters I don't think their students should have protested their free speech policy. But like I said. If they are in a area where they can't provide free speech, then they should not get funded.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,695
@previous (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
So the university should have suppressed the free speech and assembly rights of the student protesters because there was the possibility that the protest might be hijacked by nonstudent criminals? Do you not see why it's a bad idea to violate someone's concrete constitutional rights because there is the potential that other people may break the law?
So the university should have suppressed the free speech and assembly rights of the student protesters because there was the possibility that the protest might be hijacked by nonstudent criminals? Do you not see why it's a bad idea to violate someone's concrete constitutional rights because there is the potential that other people may break the law?
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,696
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Now you are putting words in my mouth. No they have a right to protest but I am against their stance.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. No they have a right to protest but I am against their stance.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,697
@previous (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
Ok but I asked you what you thought the university should have done differently and you answered with your own personal feelings about the student protests. I don't think the university could have done a whole lot differently and apparently neither do you, so stripping its federal funding makes little sense.
Ok but I asked you what you thought the university should have done differently and you answered with your own personal feelings about the student protests. I don't think the university could have done a whole lot differently and apparently neither do you, so stripping its federal funding makes little sense.
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,698
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Makes perfect sense to me though and apparently, or rather potentially, Trump.
Providing a school federal funds, when that school even through no fault of its own can't ensure their students basic rights is very questionable.
Makes perfect sense to me though and apparently, or rather potentially, Trump.
Providing a school federal funds, when that school even through no fault of its own can't ensure their students basic rights is very questionable.
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,699
@756,693 (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
the political climate is volatile everywhere in the states rn
you would pull funding from any school whose students protest?
the political climate is volatile everywhere in the states rn
you would pull funding from any school whose students protest?
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,701
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,702
@756,698 (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
So schools should lose federal funding if there's a shooter? I understand if a school is incompetent or lazy in protecting student rights, but if there is nothing they reasonably could have done otherwise, stripping funding makes no sense at all.
So schools should lose federal funding if there's a shooter? I understand if a school is incompetent or lazy in protecting student rights, but if there is nothing they reasonably could have done otherwise, stripping funding makes no sense at all.
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,703
@756,699 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
No, only the ones that can't provide free speech.
@756,701 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Agreed
No, only the ones that can't provide free speech.
@756,701 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Agreed
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,704
@756,702 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yes if there is a reasonable suspicion that the school is going to be attacked by a gun man again and again then it would be irresponsible to host students there.
Yes if there is a reasonable suspicion that the school is going to be attacked by a gun man again and again then it would be irresponsible to host students there.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,708
@previous (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
That doesn't entail pulling federal funding. When Boston was shut down due to the bombers, the feds didn't pull money from Boston schools. If the schools need increased police presence or whatever, that's one thing but pulling funding is a BIG deal and has a lot of limitations as to how and when it can be done. Trump obviously doesn't know shit about the Constitution though so I don't think he took that into consideration. He thinks like a businessman, but he is not the CEO of America, he's our temporary servant. He would do well to recognize that.
That doesn't entail pulling federal funding. When Boston was shut down due to the bombers, the feds didn't pull money from Boston schools. If the schools need increased police presence or whatever, that's one thing but pulling funding is a BIG deal and has a lot of limitations as to how and when it can be done. Trump obviously doesn't know shit about the Constitution though so I don't think he took that into consideration. He thinks like a businessman, but he is not the CEO of America, he's our temporary servant. He would do well to recognize that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 48 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,716
@756,658 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
> You use the British spelling of the word "defense". Why do you care about the American constitution?
I'll take your word for that (about British spelling), I'm from Adelaide (Australia) but now live in the US.
> You use the British spelling of the word "defense". Why do you care about the American constitution?
I'll take your word for that (about British spelling), I'm from Adelaide (Australia) but now live in the US.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,722
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,730
@756,662 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
> uh the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from someone disagreeing with you. it protects you from the government. the 1st amendment doesn't somehow make criticising you unconstitutional.
> and students are allowed to protest someone speaking at their university, since that is an implicit endorsement of the speaker by the university
Um, thanks for making my own point.
> uh the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from someone disagreeing with you. it protects you from the government. the 1st amendment doesn't somehow make criticising you unconstitutional.
> and students are allowed to protest someone speaking at their university, since that is an implicit endorsement of the speaker by the university
Um, thanks for making my own point.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,733
@756,691 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I'm far from a Trump supporter but I think they should have forced the protest to be in a different area of the campus away from the event and any student involved in the violence ought to be expelled immediately.
As for the non-students, I hope they get what's coming to them. It's just not on.
I'm far from a Trump supporter but I think they should have forced the protest to be in a different area of the campus away from the event and any student involved in the violence ought to be expelled immediately.
As for the non-students, I hope they get what's coming to them. It's just not on.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,744
The college (spoken on behalf of by the principal) should have said to the protestors: "At the end of his speech there will be a chance to debate him, and we will film it. If you are so confident that your ideas are sounder and more rational than his, then demonstrate this by destroying him in a civilised debate, which is what intelligent and mature people do in a free society".
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,745
Killer Lettuce !GyTBK0CpUc joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,746
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,749
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,751
@756,733 (J)
So you can protest things as long as no one who's attending the event you're protesting can see you. That doesn't seem right to me.
@756,744 (A)
That would have changed actually nothing because he cannot stop protests without infringing on the rights of the students.
So you can protest things as long as no one who's attending the event you're protesting can see you. That doesn't seem right to me.
@756,744 (A)
That would have changed actually nothing because he cannot stop protests without infringing on the rights of the students.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 23 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,752
@756,746 (Killer Lettuce !GyTBK0CpUc)
Yeah, on 2nd thoughts, you're right, the college should have said: "Our vision of an educated, erudite, mature, composed generation is one that silences any and all ideas that it does not like listening to".
Yeah, on 2nd thoughts, you're right, the college should have said: "Our vision of an educated, erudite, mature, composed generation is one that silences any and all ideas that it does not like listening to".
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,754
@756,751 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> So you can protest things as long as no one who's attending the event you're protesting can see you. That doesn't seem right to me.
>
>
> That would have changed actually nothing because he cannot stop protests without infringing on the rights of the students.
I'm not suggesting he should have "stopped the protest" (you're the 2nd person now who apparently didn't read my OP), I've said that protesting is a good thing and they are within their rights to do it. But the question was asked (by you I think) what the college should have done differently, and that is my answer.
> So you can protest things as long as no one who's attending the event you're protesting can see you. That doesn't seem right to me.
>
>
> That would have changed actually nothing because he cannot stop protests without infringing on the rights of the students.
I'm not suggesting he should have "stopped the protest" (you're the 2nd person now who apparently didn't read my OP), I've said that protesting is a good thing and they are within their rights to do it. But the question was asked (by you I think) what the college should have done differently, and that is my answer.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,756
@previous (A)
Well I was talking to Denmark guy with that question since he wanted federal funding stripped. The Dean could have said that but the outcome would've remained the same, so other than being a nice sentiment I don't see there being a whole lot of value in it.
Well I was talking to Denmark guy with that question since he wanted federal funding stripped. The Dean could have said that but the outcome would've remained the same, so other than being a nice sentiment I don't see there being a whole lot of value in it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,757
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Well I was talking to Denmark guy with that question since he wanted federal funding stripped. The Dean could have said that but the outcome would've remained the same, so other than being a nice sentiment I don't see there being a whole lot of value in it.
You don't see a whole lot of value in a college expressing its stance to its own students in relation to the issue of debate and the free and calm exchange of ideas? Words and the statement of principles are meaningless to you if they don't affect an immediate change in circumstances?
The Dean should have said that in order to try to establish a certain intellectual climate at his college and to impress upon the students Orwell's notion that the price of freedom is allowing things that you don't particularly like; that if freedom means anything it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
> Well I was talking to Denmark guy with that question since he wanted federal funding stripped. The Dean could have said that but the outcome would've remained the same, so other than being a nice sentiment I don't see there being a whole lot of value in it.
You don't see a whole lot of value in a college expressing its stance to its own students in relation to the issue of debate and the free and calm exchange of ideas? Words and the statement of principles are meaningless to you if they don't affect an immediate change in circumstances?
The Dean should have said that in order to try to establish a certain intellectual climate at his college and to impress upon the students Orwell's notion that the price of freedom is allowing things that you don't particularly like; that if freedom means anything it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,761
@previous (A)
If Berkeley lose their funding do you think they should sue the police for not stopping the violent protests that led to the loss?
If Berkeley lose their funding do you think they should sue the police for not stopping the violent protests that led to the loss?
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,762
why is this fuckin thread so long
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,763
@756,757 (A)
I meant with respect to affecting the outcome of the protest. I support pretty close to unfettered free speech, even for hateful and/or odious ideas, but let's not pretend that there aren't certain risks associated with that position. Sometimes bad ideas "win" for decades before they lose. Think the safety of leaded gasoline, or cigarettes not causing cancer, or the moral permissibility of chattel slavery, etc. Trying to prevent that by happening by suppressing speech also has huge costs associated with it, but it's not as though one theory of speech leads to outcomes where everyone is happy or where everyone's rights are perfectly respected.
I meant with respect to affecting the outcome of the protest. I support pretty close to unfettered free speech, even for hateful and/or odious ideas, but let's not pretend that there aren't certain risks associated with that position. Sometimes bad ideas "win" for decades before they lose. Think the safety of leaded gasoline, or cigarettes not causing cancer, or the moral permissibility of chattel slavery, etc. Trying to prevent that by happening by suppressing speech also has huge costs associated with it, but it's not as though one theory of speech leads to outcomes where everyone is happy or where everyone's rights are perfectly respected.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,768
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Nothing this Milo clown has ever said comes close to the severity of anything you've just listed there. He is a smug asshat who announces every stale revelation of the newly enlightened like he's privy to some grand understanding that the rest of us who've been paying attention aren't.
What annoys me about this isn't that his appearance was cancelled (thus allowing him to play into everything he's been saying about the left, and to sell more copies of his book to people who already agree with him), but that there was nobody in that entire college who watched his videos and then stepped forward and said: "Leave this to me. I'll destroy him on stage". I honestly believe there is nobody there who could do it, not because Milo is clever, but because the students are so fucking dumb.
I'm the OP by the way.
Nothing this Milo clown has ever said comes close to the severity of anything you've just listed there. He is a smug asshat who announces every stale revelation of the newly enlightened like he's privy to some grand understanding that the rest of us who've been paying attention aren't.
What annoys me about this isn't that his appearance was cancelled (thus allowing him to play into everything he's been saying about the left, and to sell more copies of his book to people who already agree with him), but that there was nobody in that entire college who watched his videos and then stepped forward and said: "Leave this to me. I'll destroy him on stage". I honestly believe there is nobody there who could do it, not because Milo is clever, but because the students are so fucking dumb.
I'm the OP by the way.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,773
oh, it's about that Milo fag? he's a gimmick and hardly educational, just some kind of performer
also he's an insufferable faggot
also he's an insufferable faggot
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,774
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,777
@previous (L)
ehh it's kind of rude to protest someone for being a gay, even if a gigantic prissy fag
ehh it's kind of rude to protest someone for being a gay, even if a gigantic prissy fag
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,778
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
It is kind of rude. Being gay is tough at Berkeley, they really need to sort that out.
It is kind of rude. Being gay is tough at Berkeley, they really need to sort that out.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 13 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,779
@756,768 (N)
I don't think you can "win" a debate against someone who isn't there to figure out what's true. He wants attention and notoriety, which is why he schedules these college tours. Every time he goes to one he knows there's a decent chance there will be a huge protest, because what been saying is antithetical to the majority opinion of people in college. If someone were to debate him it would only play into what he he wants to do anyway, and he "wins" if he gets the spiciest zinger. He is not going to be the Stephen Douglas to any Abe Lincoln. He's a two bit internet troll with a flamboyant personality, not a serious thinker.
And if you are so skeptical of the average college student I highly suggest taking high level university classes and seeing how well you do. They are not easy.
I don't think you can "win" a debate against someone who isn't there to figure out what's true. He wants attention and notoriety, which is why he schedules these college tours. Every time he goes to one he knows there's a decent chance there will be a huge protest, because what been saying is antithetical to the majority opinion of people in college. If someone were to debate him it would only play into what he he wants to do anyway, and he "wins" if he gets the spiciest zinger. He is not going to be the Stephen Douglas to any Abe Lincoln. He's a two bit internet troll with a flamboyant personality, not a serious thinker.
And if you are so skeptical of the average college student I highly suggest taking high level university classes and seeing how well you do. They are not easy.
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,780
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,781
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,783
Anonymous N replied with this 9 years ago, 4 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,784
@756,779 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I don't think you can "win" a debate against someone who isn't there to figure out what's true. He wants attention and notoriety, which is why he schedules these college tours. Every time he goes to one he knows there's a decent chance there will be a huge protest, because what been saying is antithetical to the majority opinion of people in college. If someone were to debate him it would only play into what he he wants to do anyway, and he "wins" if he gets the spiciest zinger. He is not going to be the Stephen Douglas to any Abe Lincoln. He's a two bit internet troll with a flamboyant personality, not a serious thinker.
>
> And if you are so skeptical of the average college student I highly suggest taking high level university classes and seeing how well you do. They are not easy.
Your final sentence napalms the sense of your own point in your opening paragraph. If you honestly believe he will "win" on the basis of pulling off the best "zinger" then you really don't have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the average student.
Also, dude, try to stop this slightly embarrassing habit you have of tacitly advertising to everyone that you went to college, this isn't the 50s, it is not impressive to have been to college anymore, everyone (including myself) has been and graduated from one these days. You don't get some kind of upper hand in an online discussion by saying you went to college, so try to rein it in buddy. If you want me to think you're educated, demonstrate it in your posts.
> I don't think you can "win" a debate against someone who isn't there to figure out what's true. He wants attention and notoriety, which is why he schedules these college tours. Every time he goes to one he knows there's a decent chance there will be a huge protest, because what been saying is antithetical to the majority opinion of people in college. If someone were to debate him it would only play into what he he wants to do anyway, and he "wins" if he gets the spiciest zinger. He is not going to be the Stephen Douglas to any Abe Lincoln. He's a two bit internet troll with a flamboyant personality, not a serious thinker.
>
> And if you are so skeptical of the average college student I highly suggest taking high level university classes and seeing how well you do. They are not easy.
Your final sentence napalms the sense of your own point in your opening paragraph. If you honestly believe he will "win" on the basis of pulling off the best "zinger" then you really don't have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the average student.
Also, dude, try to stop this slightly embarrassing habit you have of tacitly advertising to everyone that you went to college, this isn't the 50s, it is not impressive to have been to college anymore, everyone (including myself) has been and graduated from one these days. You don't get some kind of upper hand in an online discussion by saying you went to college, so try to rein it in buddy. If you want me to think you're educated, demonstrate it in your posts.
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,786
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,792
@756,784 (N)
No, because the average student isn't attending this event. It's people who know who he is and either want to be there to agree with him or be there to disageee with him. The odds on anyone's mind actually being changed is close to zero, so the debate won't be about substance, it will be about who is the most outrageous.
And i don't think going to college makes me better or worse than anyone but what it does do is give me first hand knowledge of the difficulty of college. If you can just casually dismiss all college students as being too stupid to outwit an internet troll, taking up the opposite position isn't really objectionable either, surely.
No, because the average student isn't attending this event. It's people who know who he is and either want to be there to agree with him or be there to disageee with him. The odds on anyone's mind actually being changed is close to zero, so the debate won't be about substance, it will be about who is the most outrageous.
And i don't think going to college makes me better or worse than anyone but what it does do is give me first hand knowledge of the difficulty of college. If you can just casually dismiss all college students as being too stupid to outwit an internet troll, taking up the opposite position isn't really objectionable either, surely.
Anonymous N replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,796
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> No, because the average student isn't attending this event. It's people who know who he is and either want to be there to agree with him or be there to disageee with him. The odds on anyone's mind actually being changed is close to zero, so the debate won't be about substance, it will be about who is the most outrageous.
What exactly is wrong with people being there who "want to disagree with him"? That was exactly my point. Go to the event, listen to him, then debate him at the end. Trust in people to see through his smug rabble-rousing lowest-intellectual-common-denominator shtick.
> And i don't think going to college makes me better or worse than anyone but what it does do is give me first hand knowledge of the difficulty of college.
I'm sorry but I judge you a little based on this statement. If you found college difficult, and you studied an arts degree (which I'm assuming you did), then you're just not very clever. If you didn't study an arts degree then I apologise and take back my words.
> No, because the average student isn't attending this event. It's people who know who he is and either want to be there to agree with him or be there to disageee with him. The odds on anyone's mind actually being changed is close to zero, so the debate won't be about substance, it will be about who is the most outrageous.
What exactly is wrong with people being there who "want to disagree with him"? That was exactly my point. Go to the event, listen to him, then debate him at the end. Trust in people to see through his smug rabble-rousing lowest-intellectual-common-denominator shtick.
> And i don't think going to college makes me better or worse than anyone but what it does do is give me first hand knowledge of the difficulty of college.
I'm sorry but I judge you a little based on this statement. If you found college difficult, and you studied an arts degree (which I'm assuming you did), then you're just not very clever. If you didn't study an arts degree then I apologise and take back my words.
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,798
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,799
@756,796 (N)
The point I was making is everyone's mind is made up before they enter, so the primary purpose of public debating, which is persuading a crowd, cannot be achieved to any meaningful degree.
You post for hours a day on minichan.org. I know several people who breezed through advanced classes and none of them wasted their time arguing in internet forums named after 4chan. Whatever image of yourself you are trying to project is undercut by the very venue you use to make your case. You are just not as clever or hard-working or learned as you pretend you are, and it's pretty funny watching you try to be something you are not.
The point I was making is everyone's mind is made up before they enter, so the primary purpose of public debating, which is persuading a crowd, cannot be achieved to any meaningful degree.
You post for hours a day on minichan.org. I know several people who breezed through advanced classes and none of them wasted their time arguing in internet forums named after 4chan. Whatever image of yourself you are trying to project is undercut by the very venue you use to make your case. You are just not as clever or hard-working or learned as you pretend you are, and it's pretty funny watching you try to be something you are not.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Meta joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,800
@756,792 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But what's the point of studying philosophy for four years if you can't give me a straight answer on whether reality is really real or not?
But what's the point of studying philosophy for four years if you can't give me a straight answer on whether reality is really real or not?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,802
@previous (Meta)
It's concrete. Which poses a problem because that means concrete had to exist before the universe did, but I'm working on figuring that out.
It's concrete. Which poses a problem because that means concrete had to exist before the universe did, but I'm working on figuring that out.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous N replied with this 9 years ago, 21 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,809
@756,799 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> The point I was making is everyone's mind is made up before they enter
On what are you basing that? That's condescending to these students you seem to believe are so intelligent, no? Try not to ascribe motives to people you have no way of knowing, especially the bright and flowering new generation.
As for the rest of your anecdotal post, you moderate the place mate, so you may want to dial down the self-satisfaction. Posting here is sad, yes. Moderating here is a Sophoclean tragedy.
And incidentally if all you have left is ad hominem attacks, as it seems to be, then we've closed the circle and proved my point about you. You may want to ask for a refund on the money you spent on your terribly difficult liberal arts degree which landed you the job of moderating Minichan.
> The point I was making is everyone's mind is made up before they enter
On what are you basing that? That's condescending to these students you seem to believe are so intelligent, no? Try not to ascribe motives to people you have no way of knowing, especially the bright and flowering new generation.
As for the rest of your anecdotal post, you moderate the place mate, so you may want to dial down the self-satisfaction. Posting here is sad, yes. Moderating here is a Sophoclean tragedy.
And incidentally if all you have left is ad hominem attacks, as it seems to be, then we've closed the circle and proved my point about you. You may want to ask for a refund on the money you spent on your terribly difficult liberal arts degree which landed you the job of moderating Minichan.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
ken griffey sr joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,811
@756,689 (assORted !jJEom8Ii3E)
> Yes and they have been violent to trump supporters and disrupted the school so much that they failed to uphold free speech. When a school can't uphold it, even though no fault of its own, it's questionable to fund it.
>
> It's like funding a school that can't adequately provide safety to their students.
lmao yeah defund Berkeley
you are the biggest retard here tbh
> Yes and they have been violent to trump supporters and disrupted the school so much that they failed to uphold free speech. When a school can't uphold it, even though no fault of its own, it's questionable to fund it.
>
> It's like funding a school that can't adequately provide safety to their students.
lmao yeah defund Berkeley
you are the biggest retard here tbh
ken griffey sr double-posted this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,812
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,813
@756,809 (N)
Ok this truly was enjoyable but I'm gonna go do something productive. See you in another thread!
Ok this truly was enjoyable but I'm gonna go do something productive. See you in another thread!
Anonymous N replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,814
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 40 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,815
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 13 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,816
This thread is pure gold. Thanks everyone involved. Wish I joined earlier :)
Anonymous J replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,819
@756,751 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
They're protesting Milo's ideals though, right? What he thinks and what he says. But why should they get to picket a particular event and forcibly prevent people from attending? What gives them that right? It's very intimidating for the people who choose to exercise their freedom to attend the event and as we have seen, offers a strong opportunity for violence to erupt. The audience deserved to go see him speak, whether there is a protest or not.
Look at the rhetoric from the protest organiser. She isn't apologising. In fact, it seems really apparent to me that she considers the riot just. Even without the violence, it's worrying that the students feel that it's fine for them to obstruct an event cleared by the University. They should not have the ability to make that choice. The only people who should have been able to stop that speech were the club that set it up. That event should have happened as planned. No matter who is speaking or what they are saying, they must be allowed to speak.
I'm not saying they had to be out of each others sight, but they needed to be kept apart and that just wasn't done properly.
Really the police are to blame for the actual violence. If they had handled things properly then the risk would have been much less.
I seriously think there needs to be ramifications for the students involved in anything but nonviolent protest!
They're protesting Milo's ideals though, right? What he thinks and what he says. But why should they get to picket a particular event and forcibly prevent people from attending? What gives them that right? It's very intimidating for the people who choose to exercise their freedom to attend the event and as we have seen, offers a strong opportunity for violence to erupt. The audience deserved to go see him speak, whether there is a protest or not.
Look at the rhetoric from the protest organiser. She isn't apologising. In fact, it seems really apparent to me that she considers the riot just. Even without the violence, it's worrying that the students feel that it's fine for them to obstruct an event cleared by the University. They should not have the ability to make that choice. The only people who should have been able to stop that speech were the club that set it up. That event should have happened as planned. No matter who is speaking or what they are saying, they must be allowed to speak.
I'm not saying they had to be out of each others sight, but they needed to be kept apart and that just wasn't done properly.
Really the police are to blame for the actual violence. If they had handled things properly then the risk would have been much less.
I seriously think there needs to be ramifications for the students involved in anything but nonviolent protest!
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,820
@previous (J)
> But why should they get to picket a particular event and forcibly prevent people from attending? What gives them that right?
JFC
the first amendment you massive retard
> But why should they get to picket a particular event and forcibly prevent people from attending? What gives them that right?
JFC
the first amendment you massive retard
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 9 years ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,826
@756,746 (Killer Lettuce !GyTBK0CpUc)
Wishing for a respectable debate makes me an idiot. Typical liberal thought policing.
Wishing for a respectable debate makes me an idiot. Typical liberal thought policing.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 58 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,841
@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
he's a performer though. these commentators-for-hire don't debate in any formal sense. and tossing back and forth political names and playing into the idea of two sides against each other, not on a specific topic, but in life, is the last thing the US needs these days
he's a performer though. these commentators-for-hire don't debate in any formal sense. and tossing back and forth political names and playing into the idea of two sides against each other, not on a specific topic, but in life, is the last thing the US needs these days
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 9 years ago, 29 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,847
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
Why does it matter if it's a formal debate? A back and forth would probably help some of the protesters with their frustrations, so that they don't destroy people and property.
Why does it matter if it's a formal debate? A back and forth would probably help some of the protesters with their frustrations, so that they don't destroy people and property.
Anonymous J replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,849
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 43 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,862
ken griffey sr double-posted this 9 years ago, 52 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,863
@756,847 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
it wouldn't be a debate it'd be a flamewar with a literal retard
how is that a good idea
it wouldn't be a debate it'd be a flamewar with a literal retard
how is that a good idea
Anonymous N replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,865
@756,862 (ken griffey sr)
> you asked what gives people the right to protest? what???????
No, he asked what gave them the right to "forcibly" (that word matters, try to pay attention to details sweetheart) prevent people from attending the event, and you replied with "the first amendment" and then called him a "massive retard", thus making yourself look very stupid indeed.
> you asked what gives people the right to protest? what???????
No, he asked what gave them the right to "forcibly" (that word matters, try to pay attention to details sweetheart) prevent people from attending the event, and you replied with "the first amendment" and then called him a "massive retard", thus making yourself look very stupid indeed.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,868
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,879
brie !kGoudaMCFA joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,941
federal funding for echo chambers
brie !kGoudaMCFA double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,942
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,963
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,977
there was an autralian travelling show where a guy would pull on the skin of his cock to shape it like some kind of genital origami. that is another example of something that I would not attend
beckyderp !yDoooooooo replied with this 9 years ago, 41 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,990
100 get
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 32 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #757,000
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #757,025
Anonymous L replied with this 9 years ago, 13 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #757,028
brie !kGoudaMCFA replied with this 9 years ago, 25 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #757,029
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 20 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #757,032
Anonymous J replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #757,042
@756,868 (ken griffey sr)
In this case, they caused such havoc that the event was cancelled due to safety concerns. I can't call that anything else other than forcibly preventing people from attending.
I can't agree with that, it's morally wrong.
In this case, they caused such havoc that the event was cancelled due to safety concerns. I can't call that anything else other than forcibly preventing people from attending.
I can't agree with that, it's morally wrong.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #757,043
it was a false fag operation
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 19 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #757,201
> snowflake
> safe space
wow edgy you sure got them good
> safe space
wow edgy you sure got them good
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #757,205
Can you shut the fuck up about this bullshit? Either that you kill yourself.
? replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #757,225
Anonymous J replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #757,250
Anonymous N replied with this 9 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #757,289
@757,205 (S)
> Can you shut the fuck up about this bullshit? Either that you kill yourself.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! SOMEBODY IS WRITING THINGS ON THE INTERNET THAT I DON'T LIKE!!!!!!!!!!! MAKE IT STOOOOOOOOOP!!!! MAKE IT STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Can you shut the fuck up about this bullshit? Either that you kill yourself.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! SOMEBODY IS WRITING THINGS ON THE INTERNET THAT I DON'T LIKE!!!!!!!!!!! MAKE IT STOOOOOOOOOP!!!! MAKE IT STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!