Written by Bwog Staff
In true Bwog style, we’ve read all of the 400+ comments (though it might be 500 by the time we post this) so you don’t have to.
Regarding the violence that erupted:
I’m actually shocked by the ignorance and arrogance displayed by so many of the posts on this thread. For all the complaints I’ve heard about how Columbia is this bastion of liberalism, I find most people here to be overwhelmingly conservative! It was a protest, people. The whole point of a protest is to cause a disrupton. Protests shouldn’t just be grudgingly allowed in our society and our university, or penned in some “free speech area”, they should be actively encouraged. Why aren’t there more protests, more disruptions? I count protest a viable, valuable form of public debate…
And in reply:
I also protest violence against another human beings, immigrant or not, but I do not do so using violence.
By using violence, mob tactics, and overbearance, you have lowered yourselves to the level of these “minutemen,” these fools who like to dress up in army gear and play “Mission Impossible” with people’s lives.
One thing you have gained from this protest, at least, is one more columbia student disgusted with the so called “liberals” who cannot tolerate opinions other than their own.
Regarding the protest in general:
who think tonights actions were ok. if gilchrist wasn’t brought and some think tank guy who supported deportation of illegal immigrants and wanted a wall built was brought would you immediately label him a ‘racist’ and try to disrupt the event?
Regarding “violence deserves a passionate response”:
…All of these arguments saying the protestors obstructed free speech tonight are missing the role protest plays in debate. Debate is not the exclusive domain of people at podiums; it is also the hope of the disadvantaged. Debate is the vehicle for positive change. When an entire group – say, illegal immigrants – are excluded from public discourse, it is their right and perhaps even responsibility to seize some sort of loudspeaker. If they cannot or it is too dangerous to do so, then it is not an obstruction of free speech for others to fight on their behalf. It is, quite the contrary, the very definition of free speech: the granting to the silenced some kind of voice. Make no mistake: illegal immigrants are in fact voiceless, and as the Minutemen make so horrifyingly clear, in danger, as well. Kudos to the protestors tonight for acting with courage.
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA
Exciting thing? Those things arent allowed on this campus. There will be absolutely no voicing of opinion on the part of individuals on this campus. Everything will be orderly. We’ll invite individuals, and you will listen. If you disagree, feel free to fill out a Protest Request Form at the Low Library security desk and march in the marked off designated protest area. We don’t want to mix things up too much. That goes against free speech. And also tolerance. Also it is SO uncivilized. I mean, come now, this kind of thing is downright EMBARASSING. How am I supposed to explain to my friends that there are actually people at my school and in my classes who have, like, convictions and opinions and stuff? ICK!
Regarding “violence is not the answer”:
Look, while I sympathise with the fact that many Columbia students don’t agree with the Minutemen, I also think Columbia students should have the rhetorical cajones to rely on rational discourse to take down those they don’t agree with–verbally. I was at Columbia not so long ago, and while there were often protests outside the building where a controversial figure was speaking, it rarely resulted in physical violence. Please guys, right-wing pundits are all over this already.
ironic that they host patriotic vigilantes one week, but when it comes to patriotic vigilantes in ~other~ countries, well they need to “turn away from violence” or whatever Chris said in the daily spectator.
Regarding Internet debates:
“Debating” on the internet 101:
Person 1: You’re a bigot!
Person 2: No, you’re a bigot!