Oct

5

QuickComments

Written by

pileupIn 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:

Posted by i can’t believe this: [#144] [reply]

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:

Posted by mike: [#156] [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:

Posted by question to those: [#185] [reply]

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”:

Posted by Geoff Aung: [#262] [reply]

…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.

Pointed sarcasm:

Posted by WHOA: [#268] [reply] (in reply to #258)

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”:

Posted by ohmy, columbia: [#360] [reply]

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.

Regarding Kulawik:

Posted by Anyone find it: [#69] [reply]

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:

Posted by J Train: [#307] [reply]

“Debating” on the internet 101:

Person 1: You’re a bigot!

Person 2: No, you’re a bigot!

Repeat.

Ad infinitum.

Tags: , , , , ,

9 Comments

  1. DHI  

    All I know is a lot of times people have said that somebody's gonna be getting Kudos and then four hours later there are still no chocolate-covered granola bars and I'm shit out of luck.

  2. ...

    you forgot to add the o'reilly factor guy. journalism at its finest

  3. an observer  

    http://www.minutemanproject.com/default.asp?contentID=191

    I'd just like to point out that Columbia is painted in a less than favorable light by the Minuteman spin machine. It's one thing to disagree with their principles, but behaving in such a manner wins no converts to your cause and gives conservatives all the more ammunition to attack progressives.

    • ...

      but does anyone at Columbia really care what the Minutemen think? haven't the conservatives always thought we were crazy?

      • OldGuy

        You didn't need the Minutemen's help to look completely juvenile with that stunt. Your protestor's did that on their very own. What a joke. This is an "Ivy League" school?

        • Hmmf

          Ivy League's the name of our athletic conference, pal. It doesn't have a meaning unto itself.

          Juvenile is a pretty easy way to dismiss people who have actual beliefs besides "preserve the status quo, but with more xenophobia." Boo-hoo, we're idealists and the rest of the country wants to blame its problems on Mexicans. How irresponsible we're being!

          • Cam  

            It's ridiculous to pretend the name 'Ivy League' has no reputation to go with it. That said, I'd hope any student body with a little pride would vehemently protest a speaker they believe to be abhorrent.

            Question to 7: which was juvenile? Occupying the stage, or inciting violence? I'm under the impression the protesters didn't start the punch-out.

    • rp  

      and replying to 4 as well. It's not how the minuteman spin machine made us look, it's how disgracefully we carried ourselves. and it's one thing for conservatives to think Columbia's a crazy bastion of liberalism...it's another for Columbia to act like a bunch of crazy folks with no respect for the very values they were protesting for.

  4. mah!  

    i have an opinion! look! look at what i wrote! i may never say anything like this in a real conversation, in real life, with real people, in real time, but look! here it is!

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.