Paper publishes JAW-DROPPING defense of violent protests….

Last week, students at “the birthplace of free speech” were outraged that someone who disagreed with them was scheduled to visit their campus, so they lit fires, broke windows, and violently attacked those in attendance, in an attempt to prevent him from being able to speak. Sadly, their effort was successful, and Brietbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was rushed away from campus for his own safety.

Of course, most are aware of the violent protests riots at UC-Berkeley, but what they might not know is that there’s actually an effort to defend the actions of these domestic terrorists. In fact, one of UC-Berkeley’s alumni recently took to the school newspaper to provide us with some insight to their insane logical gymnastics.

From The Daily Californian:

Let’s move on and discuss the atmospheres created during protests, when police are invited to monitor citizens practicing their right to assembly. I don’t care what Breitbart article or liberal bullsh*t listicle you’ve read, or what your experiences in white suburbia might have taught you — police are violent agents of the state.

If you’re scratching your eyes and trying to make sense of this logic, you’re not the only one. You have to be pretty delusional to believe police officers are the cause of violence, especially considering it was you who showed up to a “protest” with fireworks and riot shields. You have to be out of your mind to think police are the cause of violence when you chase an innocent bystander down the street and beat the living daylights out of him.

Naturally, our friendly neighborhood assault and arson apologist wasn’t satisfied with just blaming the police. You see, pepper spraying people who disagree with you is justified because it’s, get this…self defense:

To people with platforms who decide when a protest should and should not be violent: You speak from a place of immense privilege. As I recently wrote in a tirade against this brand of idiocy, asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act. Putting #LoveTrumpsHate at the end of a post is a privilege that many of you take advantage of, especially when there are those of us who know that our grandparents and parents survived hate only through the grace of violent action. No offense.

No offense, but words are not violence. Words cannot make a rock smash through a window. Words lack the ability to light a tree on fire. Words cannot launch bottle rockets at police officers. The only legitimate defense against words is to have a better argument. Violent suppression of someone’s speech doesn’t make you righteous, and it certainly doesn’t pass as self defense.

Of course, when you claim everybody you disagree with is a Nazi, you can justify using violence to silence just about anything. Ironically, violently silencing dissent is a trademark of fascism, and you’re the only ones practicing it.

[Note: This post was authored by Michael Lee. Follow him on Twitter @UAMichaelLee]

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of