“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Are we really expecting Coulter supporters to show up and "express themselves" on the antifa bullies or is this just some wishful thinking ?
 
Joe Random said:
#alternatefacts

Edit to add : whacking people with a U-lock because you love free expression is like analy raping a woman because you support 'no means no'.
Click to expand...

#alternatereality

No one is defending Canton or his actions, and this already has been posted. In Washington, a Trump supporter shot an antifa at a protest too, but no one is crowing about that because it is an outlier. Like Canton and his lock.

You're better than using a strawman like that bro.
 
Stout said:
Are we really expecting Coulter supporters to show up and "express themselves" on the antifa bullies or is this just some wishful thinking ?
Click to expand...

There are Coulter supporters?

If you mean the neos, they brought in militia groups and bikers for the last rally. Who said to the media that they would enjoy busting some heads. How are you missing that? Slip your mind, did it?
 
MostlyDead said:
#alternatereality

No one is defending Canton or his actions, and this already has been posted. In Washington, a Trump supporter shot an antifa at a protest too, but no one is crowing about that because it is an outlier. Like Canton and his lock.

You're better than using a strawman like that bro.
Click to expand...

Umm, you are defending his "expression."

He ain't no outlier either, the black bloc exposure program has video of him hitting at least four other people, including during the milo riot.

There are numerous other masked scum using padlocks too.

Just expressing themselves! I read it on iskep.
 
Ziggurat said:
You can indeed, when the theater is on fire.
Click to expand...

That's not even a requirement. There is no law against yelling fire in a crowded theater. This tired canard is constantly brought up by regressives as an excuse for their attacks on free speech. What they don't know is that this line was said in the context of a Supreme Court case that was dealing with government crackdowns on dissent ( the judge who said it supported said crackdowns) that was rightly overturned by a subsequent case. If anyone brings up "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", you can be sure they're an ignoramous.
 
Anyone who uses violence, property destruction, or intimidation at these events should be arrested, regardless of whom they support or don't support.

Whether they are called fascists, antifa, anarchists, Coulter supporters, Milo supporters, Trump supporters, Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, or whatever is irrelevant.

Those who don't engage in these activities have every right to protest for or against anyone they want.
 
MostlyDead said:
That's demonstrably true. What you have trouble understanding is that they are exercising free speech themselves, with enthusiasm.
Click to expand...

Breaking things and assaulting people is not exercising free speech.

That they consider violence an appropriate form of expression is where you part ways.
Click to expand...

No. That's where they (and you, apparently) depart from reality. Violence is not "expression". It is violence.
 
MostlyDead said:
That's demonstrably true. What you have trouble understanding is that they are exercising free speech themselves, with enthusiasm. That they consider violence an appropriate form of expression is where you part ways.
Click to expand...

So you mean they are all for free speech if they agree with it, and will use violence against those whose free speech they disagree with. That means that they are unequivocally against free speech.
 
Barber Shop said:
This thread is 52.75 pages too long.

Very simple concept...people and groups (even those you disagree with) have a right to freedom of expression.

Those who engage in violence, property destruction, and intimidation to shut down those they disagree with are wrong.

We could have handled this whole subject in two posts (with the second post being "well..duh") and moved on to discussing more controversial subjects like the existence of sasquatch.

Very depressing to see some 'skeptics' posting what they have here.
Click to expand...


No kidding. This thread has gone off the rails because one poster thinks that violence has a place in our society when it comes to free speech.

MostlyDead
That's demonstrably true. What you have trouble understanding is that they are exercising free speech themselves, with enthusiasm. That they consider violence an appropriate form of expression is where you part ways. However, the neos are demonstrably fully on board with violence, so the camps are peas in a pod nowadays.
Click to expand...
And so does the law, as well as every member who has posted in this thread except for you, MostlyDead.

To all: Can we somehow let the discussion move on to other aspects of this - things that are actually controversial?

ETA: never mind, ain't gonna happen.
 
Last edited:
MostlyDead said:
Berkeley is on hairtrigger nowadays. Maybe in the interests of public safety she could hold off? Does she likely have anything to say that is
time sensitive? She has every right to spit her brand of vile. But should she as a public figure have some responsibility or at least prudence
in speaking when she knows that it will almost certainly be accompanied by violence?
Click to expand...
Berkeley is on hairtrigger nowadays. Maybe in the interests of public safety Antifa could hold off? Do they have anything to do that is entirely
lawful? They have every right to legitimate protest. But should they as adults not accept full responsibility for engaging in unlawful behaviour
that they know will definitely be violent?
 
Was watching Bill Maher, sortof, and caught this (slight paraphrasing) :

"Berkeley used to be seen as the cradle of free speech, now it's just a cradle for whiners"

Sad to say, he's right. University/college is a place to learn and grow, expand your mind. If you want everyone to agree with your beliefs, be more selective about where you go.

I dislike Coulter and wouldn't go to see her. That's my response to Berkeley students who don't like her, don't go! There are movies I wouldn't be caught dead going to, but I certainly wouldn't keep anyone else from seeing them.


Grow up, all you (generic) whiners! :mad:
 
MostlyDead said:
There are Coulter supporters?

If you mean the neos, they brought in militia groups and bikers for the last rally. Who said to the media that they would enjoy busting some heads. How are you missing that? Slip your mind, did it?
Click to expand...

Yes, Coulter supporter, the people who are going to actually occupy the seats while she does her shtick.

So are you asserting there is going to be a counter protest, that the Coulterites are going to bring along a bunch of scary people to "express themselves" on antifa's middle class asses ? If so, I'd like to se some evidence. A flyer, a Facebook post, anything that would pass as a call to arms.

Maybe they're just going to let the cops handle this one. The cops who I'm sure are polishing up their batons and making sure the spare batteries for the tasers have a full charge.
 
MostlyDead said:
It's got nothing to do with the potential for violence or it's threat being an influencing factor. It has to do with there likely being a violent clash provided by but completely unrelated to her speech. She is just providing a public ring for round three. And come on, she's a professional troll, not someone with poignant thoughts. Trolls want to provoke a reaction. The predictable reaction in this case is violence between the camps. That borders incitement.
Click to expand...

That a lot of words to say you believe due to the content of her speech she doesn't have the right to talk.

She had zero responsibility for any violence that is incurred and no responsibility to censor herself due to the tantrums of these idiots.

Think of it this way.

How would you react if I said that if you ever post again I'm going to kill someone. Is it now your responsibility to never post again to save this person's life? Or would it be one hundred per cent on me if I chose to kill someone because you want to post your opinion?
 
MostlyDead said:
That's demonstrably true. What you have trouble understanding is that they are exercising free speech themselves, with enthusiasm. That they consider violence an appropriate form of expression is where you part ways. However, the neos are demonstrably fully on board with violence, so the camps are peas in a pod nowadays.
Click to expand...

Once it turns to action it is no longer free speech. Very simple concept, would you like links to the differences between talking and acting?
 
MostlyDead said:
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, how many times does this have to be repeated?

Neo-Nazis tend to show up at conservative rallys. The antifa show up to protest them. This has nothing to do with Coulter, Milo, or free speech.
Click to expand...

Bigger text means more right, keep cranking it up I think I'll believe you when you hit size 50 or so font.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom