Now that we’re all up to speed, here is an article from Breitbart.com:
Report: UC Riverside Student Faces Up to One Year in Jail over Alleged MAGA Hat Theft
by Tom Ciccotta
UC Riverside student Edith Macias has reportedly been charged with one misdemeanor count of grand theft for a September incident in which she allegedly stole a MAGA hat from one of her peers.
At this point I’m certain she’s hyperventilating at the thought. But wait, there’s more.
According to a document provided to The College Fix by the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, Macias has been charged with one misdemeanor count of grand theft. Her next scheduled court date will take place in March 2018. According to a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, Macias could face up to one year in county jail.
Of course she won’t do a year. Likely she’ll be placed on probation. And the only reason she’ll acquire that is because the entire incident was properly documented by Matthew Vitale.
Note to Conservatives On Campus: the video and photo aspects of your phone can be your best friend in challenging times. Do what every other Leftist does. Record everything. Believe nothing.
“I’m very pleased that the DA decided to charge her, especially because I am skeptical that UCR student conduct did anything. I will be following up with the student conduct office to determine if anything was done,” he said.
Today, this is the best one can achieve considering the circumstances.
Vitale went on to explain that the charges against Macias should serve as a message to college students around the country as to what conduct is acceptable with regards to political discourse.
In my college years, had something like that occurred on campus and Edith stole an item belonging to another student and refused to give it back, her next memory would be that of awakening on the floor with a swollen jaw.
No one would have bartered or negotiated patiently for a return of their property. There would have been immediate consequences for stupid and/or illegal behavior.
Precisely what’s missing today: common sense and obvious consequences in a timely fashion.
That’s called problem-solving at the lowest possible level.
My mother-in-law told me, just before she passed away of pancreatic cancer in 2007, that some people are simply on this earth to be an example of what not to do or how not to act.
The young female Hispanic unit portrayed in the below video is a perfect example. I wanted to post the video here so you could see and watch the true nature of most Leftists today and certainly the bulk of the Silkworms** on campus. I think her behavior and her words illustrate my point infinitely better than I ever could.
This is another reason free speech is brilliant. It allows you see the true person behind the vocal cords.
She and other Leftists live in a land where “fuck you” is a legitimate reply to a question and to steal the property belonging to another is valid and where racist remarks are not only justified but mandated when it comes to Caucasoids.
The fact pattern is this. Both are students at the University of California at Riverside. On Thursday, September 28th, Edith “Chata” Macias (chata in Spanish means “boring”), the unit in the video, steals the red MAGA hat from the head of fellow student Matthew Vitale (his Facebook post is here) in a classroom.
Macias then runs to the “student life” office in order to “report” the hat. You see the rest.
Macias believed it was mandatory to steal the hat from the head of another student because she disagreed vehemently with the red MAGA item. That this act is illegal — theft — made no difference to her. That he had a right to wear it made no difference to her. That he had property rights made no difference to her. What made all the difference to her was that he was a Caucasoid and by dint of that and the hat, he is inherently racist and evil.
However, the only racist utterings we hear are those of Macias. The only disrespect, lies and foul language we hear and see is attributed to Macias. Frankly, it seems to me that Macias has committed a hate crime well documented on video.
Vitale states he only wants the hat back and what she did was illegal; that is, she stole property belonging to him.
Frankly, I could make an excellent case for the applicability of California section 211 PC, which reads as follows:
Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.
That is completely immaterial to the Hispanic unit. Laws mean nothing to her. The country means little to her. You heard what she said.
“Look at the kind of shit he’s wearing?” she said. “You know what this represents? Genocide.”
The hat-owner began filming the altercation as the hat-taker implored administrators to punish him for wearing it. “This is mine,” he said. “You do not get to take other people’s property that is legally theirs in this country.”
“Man, fuck your laws,” was her reply.
The Hispanic unit began the entire loving event by saying:
“So this guy thought it would be a good idea to go into a conference wearing this fucking hat. Look at the kind of shit he’s wearing, You know what this represents? This represents genocide—genocide of a bunch of people.”
She pauses for a brief moment expecting vindication, a round of applause, an award, a porcelain dalmatian, a certificate of excellence, people to jump out of closets and tackle the guy taking the video and turning him into a puddle of beaten goo?
Yes. She altogether expected the cowering GOWPs behind the counter to instantly side with her and declare his obvious oppression.
Uh oh. Worse yet. They didn’t. Note their reactions throughout the whole mine minute video. It’s what you would expect of GOWPs.
“Your freedom of speech is killing a lot of people out there,” she said.
“Do you have any fucking conscience? Your fucking freedom of speech is genocide, homeboy,” she said.
“I swear to God I could burn this shit. I swear to God I could burn this shit,” she says.
“That’s full of shIt, because you all are just going to, like, mediate this and make it so like we’re all okay here, freedom of speech, whatever,” she says.
The laws of the land from the founding fathers: whatever.
“How about we think about what’s actually going on in this country?” she says.
As in your commission of a crime?
“Fuck your fucking freedom of speech, boy. Fuck it. Fuck it because your freedom of speech is literally killing a lot of people out there. That’s what it is, because you’re out there wearing hats like these that promote laws and legislations that literally kill and murder in the masses people of color,” she says.
Boring Macias accuses Vitale of “micro-aggressions against people of color.”
“Micro-aggressions.” Ripped from the Snowflake handbook. Not one original thought, Boring Macias.
“We need to get rid of all y’all,” she says. White genocide is peachy nifty with her.
“Oh, because ‘you stole my property.’ Y’all stole this land! Your ancestors stole this land, motherfucker,” she says.
We’ll get to that, Boring Macias.
The best yet?
“I fucking hate this country. I hate it, and I’m not leaving. I’m staying here because there’s shit that needs to be fixed here. We need to get rid of all y’all. You’ve got a shitload of privilege, and it shows by you wearing this hat. . .while there’s literally people getting killed out there.”
If you fucking hate this country, Boring Macias, I’ll wager there are thousands and thousands of Americans who feel the same way about you.
Vitale, by the way, said he’s half-Nicaraguan. Immaterial to Boring Macias because he is “white presenting.”
Her final point?
“Oh my God, you’re going to keep letting him wear it?” Macias says. “That just shows how the fucking UCR is and the education system. It’s geared to benefit white people, white people, not me.”
After all, it’s all about her and no else. No one may do anything she doesn’t approve in Chata Land.
I wonder how she would be acting if someone stole a piece of property from her? How would others on campus be reacting?
This is “Panchita’s” little motto she writes on Facebook: “La cara represora de un régimen débil que golpea para generar temor, el que agrede no muestra fuerza, sino miedo a la fuerza del agredido.”
Translated: The repressive face of a weak regime that strikes to generate fear, the one that attacks does not show force, but fear to the force of the aggressor.
One question to the Hispanic bint. Do you know why you speak Spanish instead of Nahuatl? Because Mexico was conquered. By Spain. You are speaking the language of your European conqueror. Spain is this odd country of Caucasoids far, far away. Look it up.
Yet she is being repressed in the United States. Only her.
An aside: Boring Macias begs GoFundMe for $200 on an apartment deposit. Why? You’ll love it.
I attend the University of California, Riverside. I found a place to stay next school year but need help getting enough money to put a down payment on it. I have one week to raise $200 but my mom can’t help and the rest of my family won’t help. My moms rent just went up $100 which makes it harder for her to help me. I had a job when summer started in riverside… But was forced to move to LA with my mom because I was evicted of my home by a racist white bitch. In LA finding a job has been hard for me. I’m going to be looking for other ways to make enough money to pay the down payment… But I thought id take a shot. Thanks you.
She’s the victim. Her mother is the victim. How horrible that the “racist white bitch” likely wanted rent for home. How evil to expect cash for shelter! Corporatist! Money grubber! These things must be provided for free! She has spoken!
Who’s the money grubber? She’s raised $1,067 so far after the video. Before the video, por nada. Are you thinking what I’m thinking. . . ?
On her Facebook post of the video, Macias wrote “You feel safe cuz you got the cops and politicians on your side. Youre not safe… just saying. We need to make racists scared.”
Let me please note that Reason.com thought Vitale, the student whose hat was stolen, was every bit responsible for the incident.
Watch and weep as two students at the University of California-Riverside fight—like children—over a MAGA hat.
These were adult college students. Not preschoolers. Not toddlers. We repeat, adults. One saw something she didn’t like—a hat—and thought the best thing to do was steal it, and tattle to mom and dad (the administration) assuming their obligation to protect her from hats she doesn’t like. His response was to tattle to the entire world— with his phone.
So recording it on the telephone was “tattling to the world.” In a world where the most minute event in which a conservative is involved would itself otherwise, not having been immured on video, resulted in the conservative being nothing but wrong wrong wrong. Even now, with video, elements insist the conservative — worse yet, a Caucasoid — was wrong wrong wrong. And a racist. And everything -ist and -obe.
Again, to be clear, people get to walk around a public university campus wearing whatever hats they want. If this makes you want to set something on fire, you’re in for a rough life.
But if someone takes your MAGA hat because they fell for the trap you set, maybe you don’t have to be such a whiny little snowflake about it.
Wait. “Reason” magazine made the heuristic leap from “you can wear whatever hat you want” to “this was nothing more than a trap for a poor little jejune Leftist Hispanic unit?” and, by dint of that, the actual victim in this case is “whiny”?
Apparently, Reason be damned. On oh-so-numerous levels.
Because Vitale’s summary was this:
“I respect her opinion. She has her opinion…..whatever sources and life experience… that’s okay. I have my opinion. That should be okay too.”
Oppressive! Heinous! Off with his head!
This Hispanic bint doesn’t care about our laws. She hates our country. She hates free speech. Only her thoughts matter. The GOWPs in the student life office offer what GOWPs offer: “let’s talk about this. We want you to feel safe. Let’s mediate. We’re neutral”
“You’re neutral my ass,” she said.
She has no interest in mediating anything. There is only one perspective here: hers. Every other opinion or speaker can go to hell. This is not up for debate. She has spoken. Everyone must accede to her wishes no matter what law is broken or where.
As far as she is concerned, she is inviolate. Untouchable.
She wasn’t born thinking this was. This was first taught to her and then reinforced in a consequence-free United States.
Thankfully, over the past weekend, the video went viral.
Thanks honey. You made all the points I ever needed about the true nature of today’s Leftists who are, at heart and soul, spoiled, petulant children.
**Silkworm is a new term I’ve started for what are essentially Snowflakes. “Silk” because they way overvalue their worth and, simultaneously, are expensive to maintain and quite dainty. “Worms” because they are grubby, disgusting and primarily found to have no real purpose save that of, well, no real purpose.
And while we’re on the topic, here’s a fabulous video of a swarm of loving black individuals deciding that it’s absolutely acceptable and recommended to beat Caucasoid women. Anyone think this might be a group hate crime? Perhaps to the tune of “slam her dumb white ass”?
Wait. So can eggs. Cow farts. A blue ringed octopus. Loose lug nuts. The cargo door from a 747. A bee. Bad spinach.
If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?
There you go. Speech is in fact violent. With that in mind, I wonder just what kinds of speech Leftists will consider violent because, after all, the author is quite the Leftist herself? Moreover, who will make these weighty decisions?
This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”
Ah, here we go. Safe spaces. Coloring books. Safety pins, trigger warnings and microaggressions. The only things truly required at universities any more are drool cups. And sippy cups.
The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.
Again: define “abusive.” In whose eyes? And who makes that ultimate determination?
What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.
Wait. Are these hateful words. Is this an advocacy of violence?
A history of violence? On whose side?
What of the loving and peaceful Diablo College professor Eric Clanton? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be actual violence committed by a Leftist on camera.
What does that sound like to you? Just a wee tinge of violent speech? Enough to nut up a snowflake? Not necessarily for, you see, it is all quite topic-dependent.
To me it sounds like the environment one customarily encounters on any given campus in the United States when any student, singly or in a group, begins speech which is conservative in nature. In this aspect Barrett makes a perfect point. But not the one she intended.
That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.
Let me unpack the obvious here, something few people point out. Milo is or isn’t anyone’s particular cup of tea. Frankly, I enjoy his willingness to display pushback right in the revered houses of “education” so unfailingly determined to restrict speech. But the reason debate isn’t generally acquired in a Milo campus presentation is because of two aspects: 1. He thinks on his feet with remarkable rapidity, and 2. He is quick to throw facts and situations back at the commenters and questioners in the audience. Leftists don’t operate in the sphere of facts but instead of emotions.
That was pretty emotional, I’d wager. Thanks, professor. Nice advocacy of violence.
By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.
Then Barrett encountered a problem. She appeared on the Tucker Carlson show.
Leftists are at least nothing if not consistent. They only deign to answer questions fitting their narrative. And certainly not the questions I posed as did Tucker: define abuse and tell me who becomes the ultimate determinant of same?
Leftists would resoundingly answer in unison to the one question: government should be the determinant by way of laws restricting speech. Damn that First Amendment.
Stop Telling Students Free Speech Is Traumatizing Them
by Jesse Singal
One fairly common idea that pops up again and again during the endless national conversation about college campuses, free speech, and political correctness is the notion that certain forms of speech do such psychological harm to students that administrators have an obligation to eradicate them — or, failing that, that students have an obligation to step in and do so themselves (as has happened during recent, high-profile episodes involving Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, which turned violent).
Agreed. Just ask snowflakes. I love that word. It’s so apropos.
So it’s weird, in light of all this, to see the claim that free speech on campus leads to serious psychological harm being taken seriously in the New York Times, and weirder still to see it argued in a manner draped in pseudoscience. Yet that’s what happened. In a Sunday Review column headlined “When Is Speech Violence?” Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, explains that “scientifically speaking,” the idea that physical violence is more harmful than emotional violence is an oversimplification. “Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.” Chronic stress can also shrink your telomeres, she writes — “little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes” — bringing you closer to death.
This is a weak and confused argument. Setting aside the fact that no one will ever be able to agree on what’s “abusive” versus what’s “merely offensive,” the articles Barrett links to are mostly about chronic stress — the stress elicited by, for example, spending one’s childhood in an impoverished environment of serious neglect and violence. Growing up in a dangerous neighborhood with a poor single mother who has to work so much she doesn’t have time to nurture you is not the same as being a college student at a campus where Yiannopoulos is coming to speak, and where you are free to ignore him or to protest his presence there.
Thank you. Finally, someone points out the Captain Obvious aspects of campus speech and pretty much speech everywhere.
And that’s this. You have two legs and at least something of a brain. You can decide to leave the room, turn off the television, stop reading, leave the website, put down the magazine, turn off the iPad, etc. Any number of logical adult decisions can be made. Logical. Adult. Decisions.
This is apparently a concept with which Leftists, snowflakes, raindrops and all makes and models of emos are stultifyingly unfamiliar.
Nowhere does Barrett fully explain how the presence on campus of a speaker like Yiannopoulos for a couple of hours is going to lead to students being afflicted with the sort of serious, chronic stress correlated with health difficulties. It’s simply disingenuous to compare the two types of situations — in a way, it’s an insult both to people who do deal with chronic stress and to student activists.
Thank you. Again more shocking clarity and honesty.
Now, it would be just as much of a stretch to say that a single column like Barrett’s could cause students to self-traumatize as it would be to say that an upcoming Yiannopoulos appearance could traumatize them. But in the aggregate, if you tell students over and over and over that certain variants of free speech — variants which are ugly, but which are aired every moment of every day on talk radio — are traumatizing them, it really could do harm.
Yes. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
And there’s no reason to go down this road, because there’s no evidence that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus is harming students in some deep psychological or physiological way (with the exception of outlying cases involving preexisting mental-health problems). This is a silly idea that should be retired from the conversation about free speech on campus.
From whom does trauma occur to others? Leftists.
From whom does violence on campus occur? Leftists.
Who cannot brook or tolerate opposing viewpoints, thoughts or exposition?
Right. Because Life is just like that — one big Safe Space.
I mean, I was stupid in college. I was voting Demorat.
But for fuck’s sake, I wasn’t that stupid.
I was taking a full college load and working for four radio stations, was Photo Editor for the college newspaper, woke up at 5 AM and went to bed at 10 or 11 PM. I paid my tuition, had to buy my own used car in order to get to work.
At my peak I had six jobs, four at radio stations, one at a newspaper, one at the college. Plus my classes. I never had a moment to consider protests or safe spaces or microaggressions. I was too busy worrying about how I would pay for my textbooks.
So I bought used textbooks and then learned: they were already highlighted with the salient points. They wouldn’t be salient points if they weren’t highlighted, right?
And that’s how I passed college. Only a portion of my weekends were free.
The crimes discussed in a text book are “distressing.” Such petunias, you are.
Confusingly, the survey found most students pay lip service to free speech – with 60% agreeing universities “should never” limit it.
But in practice many of them turned on a dime to support censorious policies in practice.
NEVER trust Millennials when it comes to their support for our foundational documents. I am convinced they 1) are not even remotely familiar with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and 2) frighteningly willing to shed those rights with which they are unfamiliar.
The rights that so many Americans have died for.
NEVER. TRUST. MILLENNIALS.
They are “educated.”
But they have not learned.
You want to read a great article about so-called “safe spaces”? Click on this to read Camille Paglia’s article. You might think that Paglia is a right winger. Uh, no. Full transcript is here.