“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[marplots]

Not sure what else I can say (especially tonight) except that I disagree. I see where you are coming from about Coulter possibly trying to intimidate, but even if that is true she can say it is a response to intimidation because it actually is. One side is using violence to quiet others. That is what is wrong, or wronger, or even wrongester. Bad.

It's badong.

Maybe it's bad-evil, bevil.

While it would be nice to settle on violence as the cleaver to untie the Gordian knot here, I think it's a red herring. If her opponents managed to squash the event by other, non violent means, the situation would shake out the same - a bomb threat, or killing the power to the campus, or even over-shouting her in the auditorium still shakes out the same in right/wrong terms.

On the local news tonight I saw a sign at the Berkeley rally thing. Said something similar to "This is not about free speech, it is about bigotry gaining acceptance through exposure" or whatever. The people holding the sign wouldn't talk to the reporter.

That is one opinion. Free speech is there to protect speech you don't like, yada yada. To me, sitting in this chair, it is 100% about free speech, regardless of what Coulter herself is thinking. I wanted her to show up.

ETA:
Everyone is being very badong lately and I'm weary from it.

There's a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to it all that makes me wary, and it stems from an inability to compromise or even consider something less than the ideologically pure, preferred outcome.

My refusal to consider other points of view gives my opponent permission to do the same and we get an escalation as we each try to out-virtue the other. Soon enough I've given myself permission to treat you worse than I'd treat my drunken neighbor, caught pissing on the roses.

 

[The Big Dog]

A tiny group of Black Bloc/anti-fa showed up to protest yesterday.

There was no violance, mainly because the cops actually did something and enforced a rule prohibiting masks.

In good news fans of dystopian anarchic states, Anti-fa managed to cause the cancellation of a Parade in Portland due to their threats of violence.

maybe the FBI wants to think about adding them to its list of domestic terrorists?

 

[Ziggurat]

But the ironic thing is neither side wants to cancel, not really. Each wants the other to appear so they can point at their opponents and tell us what bad people their opponents are because of the views they hold.

You are wrong. The antifa really do want to deny Coulter the opportunity to speak. This is the tactic of no-platforming. They don't want to be heard, they really do want Coulter to be not heard.

You would need to ignore all the other instances of no-platforming in order to arrive at this conclusion, because it really doesn't match what's going on.

Both sides are claiming the high ground here.

Sure, but that doesn't mean both sides' claims are equally valid.

Neither are victims.

That is simply not true. Coulter was denied speech through the threat of violence. She has been harmed. The antifa were not denied any speech because of the threat of violence. They have not been harmed.

Both say they are acting outside the social norms

Wrong again. Coulter has never said she is acting outside the social norms. And guess what? She isn't acting outside the social norms.

They are both wrong.

No. You have formed a false equivalency which does not withstand scrutiny.

 

[Mycroft]

You are wrong. The antifa really do want to deny Coulter the opportunity to speak. This is the tactic of no-platforming. They don't want to be heard, they really do want Coulter to be not heard.

Meh, I'm half-convinced this is their way of promoting Coulter and the far alt-right for the purpose of keeping the USA off balance. By the time we get our heads screwed on right again Putin will have annexed the remainder of the Ukraine, the remainder of Georgia and probably a half dozen former Soviet satellites.

 

[ginjawarrior]

not speaking for either side here both sides as far as im concerned are *********.. but watching stuff like this i cant but think things on the american side of the pond are gonna get much worse before they get better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE42ZhnuDTc

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, extreme left and extreme right are in many ways the same, but they're also very different, and using the same word for both is, well, confusing.

What's the material difference? Not challenging, just asking. I don't really see that there's a meaningful difference between them other than 'left/right'... and the end of the spectrum doesn't really seem meaningful to me in light of the totalitarian intolerance involved. But there's a whole lot about those philosophies that I may not know.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, that is the problem with arguing from analogy on this forum. Apparently no analogy will ever pass muster because either it doesn't 100% fit with the thing it's been compared to (which is a given, since it's an analogy) or another analogy will be proposed to better fit with the second poster's opinion, rather than making any sort of effort at understanding the point.

This forum is not alone. It's a sad world for those of us with a fondness for analogies...

 

[Joe Random]

What's the material difference? Not challenging, just asking. I don't really see that there's a meaningful difference between them other than 'left/right'... and the end of the spectrum doesn't really seem meaningful to me in light of the totalitarian intolerance involved. But there's a whole lot about those philosophies that I may not know.

It's been said before in other contexts and I do agree with it - the meaningful scale isn't left/right, it's authoritarian/libertarian (lower case 'l'). I'm no more comfortable with "<x> shouldn't be allowed to speak because they're transphobic" than I am with "<x> shouldn't be allowed to speak because they mock Christianity". Not to say that it's fine to label both sides as fascist, or whatever, but at the end of the day I think the important focus should be on the behavior, and not the term being used to label it. It'd be a better world if we could get linguistic precision and move on, but all too often it seems the discussion gets mired down in the semantic part, to the exclusion of the actual issues.

It's like that vid of Triglyprof, screaming at cops for not shutting down a talk by Gavin McInnes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AelSaLXyN0) . She repeatedly calls him a Nazi or neo-Nazi, and demands that cops should be 'kicking his ass'. Now from what I've read about him he's not what could remotely be considered a Nazi, but that's not the important thing to fight against. So the choice is : do we debate if McInnes is or is not a Nazi, or do we talk about how utterly repugnant it is that a professor is loudly demanding that LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS use force to keep someone from expressing a point of view?

Would be nice if we could do both with appropriate balance, but I don't think we're there right now as a species.

 

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by Chancellor Dirks
This is a university, not a battlefield,” Dirks said. “The strategies necessary to address these evolving threats are also evolving, but the simplistic view of some — that our police department can simply step in and stop violent confrontations whenever they occur — ignores reality.”

What part of "To protect and serve" don't they get? The whole purpose of the PD is to step in and stop violent confrontations whenever they occur, especially if the place and time is known.

 

[Meadmaker]

Everyone is being very badong lately and I'm weary from it.

Fortunately, this is an overly pessimistic view. Most people aren't even affected by the Berkeley follies, much less participating in them. Likewise with other Antifa activities and various pro-Trump rallies.

I am troubled by the emergence of any political violence in the USA, but when it comes down to it, the number of people involved is a pretty insignificant fraction of the population.

I'll bet that even on the campus of UC Berkeley, most students are studying for finals and don't have time to deal with saving the world by threatening to break windows.

 

[surreptitious57]

when it comes down to it the number of people involved is a pretty insignificant fraction of the population

One person can change the course of history so numbers are not a reliable indicator. A better one would be the degree
of impact the actions of that fraction have had. So given how this has gone viral that impact cannot be underestimated

 

[marplots]

That is simply not true. Coulter was denied speech through the threat of violence. She has been harmed. The antifa were not denied any speech because of the threat of violence. They have not been harmed.

She has been denied (if anything) speaking at this place, at this time. But there is nothing particularly significant about the location or time that elevates it above any other venue. If she really cared about delivering her message (the content) then she'd find another way to do it. Has she?

The only thing which distinguishes this venue is the push-back from protesters. Coulter's speech follows a previous riot when another conservative speaker was scheduled. She's responding to that. The event isn't about free speech, it's about confronting rival political views physically - that's why the time and place matter. You can't play football unless both teams show up to the game.

 

[Ziggurat]

She has been denied (if anything) speaking at this place, at this time. But there is nothing particularly significant about the location or time that elevates it above any other venue.

Wrong again. The reservations and arrangements made for that time and place (including money spent) made it significant.

You're getting desperate it your defense of speech suppression.

 

[The Big Dog]

She has been denied (if anything) speaking at this place, at this time. But there is nothing particularly significant about the location or time that elevates it above any other venue. If she really cared about delivering her message (the content) then she'd find another way to do it. Has she?

The only thing which distinguishes this venue is the push-back from protesters. Coulter's speech follows a previous riot when another conservative speaker was scheduled. She's responding to that. The event isn't about free speech, it's about confronting rival political views physically - that's why the time and place matter. You can't play football unless both teams show up to the game.

She lost the opportunity to speak directly to the people who invited her, the people who invited her lost the opportunity to question her, and she lost the opportunity to answer.

All because of some anti free speech fanatics.

 

[sadhatter]

She has been denied (if anything) speaking at this place, at this time. But there is nothing particularly significant about the location or time that elevates it above any other venue. If she really cared about delivering her message (the content) then she'd find another way to do it. Has she?

The only thing which distinguishes this venue is the push-back from protesters. Coulter's speech follows a previous riot when another conservative speaker was scheduled. She's responding to that. The event isn't about free speech, it's about confronting rival political views physically - that's why the time and place matter. You can't play football unless both teams show up to the game.

What's So special about the front of the bus, does she really need to sit in that exact seat? I'm sure a lot of drama could be avoided if she just sat somewhere else.

But no, this logic is okay to use if you don't like the person in question.

Unless all are free none are free. I'm sad you don't feel this way.

 

[surreptitious57]

She lost the opportunity to speak directly to the people who invited her the people who invited her lost the
opportunity to question her and she lost the opportunity to answer. All because of some anti free speech fanatics

A sad day for the First Amendment and for democracy. And this looks to be the norm for at least the next four years

 

[Mumbles]

A sad day for the First Amendment and for democracy. And this looks to be the norm for at least the next four years

*shrug* We've had years of violent police crackdowns on peaceful protests (Occupy, Black Lives Matter, NoDAPL), white supremacists running wild, taking over public lands and shooting people. And now we have one such nutjob in the White House. As I said, once you rule out nonviolent protest, you end up with violent protests instead - and that's why you're seeing these Antifa idiots starting to emerge increasingly, and outside of their usual areas.

But let's be honest - everyone already knows that Ann Coulter and Milo Whoever have nothing intellectual to say, just spew insults and then whine when anyone returns the favor. This is hardly a loss of any sort of debate or educational opportunity. And as for the first amendment - as I said, that ship sailed years ago.

 

[surreptitious57]

She has been denied (if anything) speaking at this place at this time. But there is nothing particularly significant about the location or time
that elevates it above any other venue. If she really cared about delivering her message (the content) then she d find another way to do it

If those who wish to deny her her First Amendment rights purely for the crime of thinking differently to them really cared about free speech they would
let her speak. She was formally invited to speak there. They have no right to disrespect that decision. She cancels or speaks somewhere else then they
have won. In a democracy this type of behaviour is simply unacceptable

 

[surreptitious57]

everyone already knows that Ann Coulter and Milo Whoever have nothing intellectual to say

Everyone that is other than those who do think they have something intellectual to say. But even if no one did that would still not be justification
for denying them their right to free speech. The First Amendment applies to everyone equally regardless of intellectual ability. Free speech is less
concerned with what someone has to say and more concerned with them actually having the freedom to say it. This is why it is called free speech
Because it applies to everyone to be free to say whatever they want to

 

[The Big Dog]

People I disagree with have nothing interesting to say, so it is ok if they are silenced.

The death of freedom of speech, from the left of course.