“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[marplots]

Listen I'm not saying you can't ride the bus ,I'm not an ******* , I'm just saying that you can keep in the back, we're compromising here, meet me half way.

That would probably work. Compromise should always be on the table. We don't need everything to end up with road-rage and guns drawn. There are better ways to get along with each other.

Sometimes, standing on principle is just an excuse for acting the obdurate ass. Every collision of opinion doesn't rise to Rosa-Parks-level injustice. In fact, that's a bit of an insult to Mrs. Parks.

 

[sadhatter]

That would probably work. Compromise should always be on the table. We don't need everything to end up with road-rage and guns drawn. There are better ways to get along with each other.

Sometimes, standing on principle is just an excuse for acting the obdurate ass. Every collision of opinion doesn't rise to Rosa-Parks-level injustice. In fact, that's a bit of an insult to Mrs. Parks.

Yeah I'm sure when she stood up for herself, she didn't intend just anyone to have those rights.

Rights are only for those we agree with, everyone else can just suck it up if they don't pass the victim test.

 

[marplots]

Yeah I'm sure when she stood up for herself, she didn't intend just anyone to have those rights.

Rights are only for those we agree with, everyone else can just suck it up if they don't pass the victim test.

The trouble with playing the "rights" card and invoking memories of civil disobedience to combat racism - the trouble is both sides can play the same card. One is struggling to uphold the principles of freedom of speech and the other is trying to suppress racists/fascists (or whatever they claim).

Everybody's an oppressor. Everybody's a victim.

That's why the analogy fails. I mean, besides the part where cheap theatrics is running the show.

 

[Thermal]

Ann Coulter cancelled her speech. She says conservatives who nacked her have changed their minds.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech.html?_r=0

Riiiiight.

Community members can be protected, they just are not. The last riot went on for about 12 hours total.

So did her security pull out or is it about the money she was to be paid? Wondering how much freedom of speech is worth to her. Not a Coulter fan, nor a hater, but this is sad.

UCBerk Chancellor Nicholas Dirks and Chief of Police Alex Yao think otherwise. From the LATimes:

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.”

But even without a high-profile headliner such as Coulter, UC Berkeley Police Capt. Alex Yao said, authorities expect extremists to arrive on campus “to have violence against each other.”

And one of the conservative backing groups opine on Coulter:

The president of one student group, BridgeCal, said the escalating rhetoric surrounding what was intended as “discourse” contributed to the group’s decision to rescind its invitation.

“Ann herself is using this a little to her advantage — to engage in the test of free speech,” said Pranav Jandhyala. He said he found Coulter’s recent public comments “unnecessarily provocative.”

So this isn't about free speech. Coulter is welcome to speak, but was asked to reschedule by a couple of days to a daylight time when classes were not in session (study week prior to finals). This is because, as Dirks says, they are a University, not a Battlefield. The Chief of Freaking Police there says that providing security is not the simple matter that some would think (and, interestingly, that he expects the extremist groups to show up with or without Coulter). And one of the campus conservative backers think that Coulter is egging on a fight, so they bailed on support.

Hope all goes well, no casualties.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-coulter-berkeley-20170426-story.html

 

[Thermal]

And NPR's reporting:

Reuters and The New York Times report that Coulter said in an emailed statement that she decided to cancel the speech after conservative groups backed out of sponsoring the event.

And Berkeley's public statement laid it out very well. The whole statement is worth the read:

This university has two non-negotiable commitments, one to free speech, the other to the safety of our campus community members, their guests, and the public...We believe that once law enforcement professionals determine there are security risks attendant to a particular event, speakers need to focus on what they actually want to achieve...If, on the other hand, the objective is stir up conflict and violence without regard for the safety, rights and interests of others in order to advance personal interests, we cannot abandon our commitment to the safety of our community members.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/26/525745159/after-back-and-forth-ann-coulter-speech-is-off-at-uc-berkeley

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/04/26/new-message-from-the-chancellor-about-possible-coulter-visit/?utm_content=bufferfa415&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[mgidm86]

I guess the back of the bus depends on how important you think it is to get where you are going, vs., you know, making some meta-point.

I suppose if Coulter doesn't really have anything worth speaking about and it's all just a ruse to bring up free speech issues, then no compromise will do. After all, if the idea is to get into a fight, there's no reason to do anything other than fight.

It rings hollow and disingenuous to me, if that's what Coulter is after. If showing up is more important than anything she has to say. It's become the American version of soccer hooliganism - no longer about the sport, but about the confrontation.

All part of a $50,000 college education, I guess.

I disagree. It isn't Coulter that started the "fight", it is the people using violence and intimidation to repeatedly shut down free speech. In this case it is absolutely as much about being able to speak as about what she has to say.

It is the thugs and the school that made this a fight. Ann Coulter should speak, at this point, just for the sake of speaking. I don't care if she simply reads her favorite stew recipe.

 

[applecorped]

Franken/Antifa 2020!

 

[Ziggurat]

So this isn't about free speech.

Of course it is. You can argue that it isn't only about free speech, but that doesn't make it not about free speech. That is inherently part of the issue here, there is no getting around that.

 

[sadhatter]

The trouble with playing the "rights" card and invoking memories of civil disobedience to combat racism - the trouble is both sides can play the same card. One is struggling to uphold the principles of freedom of speech and the other is trying to suppress racists/fascists (or whatever they claim).

Everybody's an oppressor. Everybody's a victim.

That's why the analogy fails. I mean, besides the part where cheap theatrics is running the show.

No it doesn't.

One side wants to speak and the other wants to use violence and threats of violence to stop that.

They can play the same card, doesn't mean they are both right. And how right they are has nothing to do with if I like them or not.

 

[sadhatter]

And NPR's reporting:



And Berkeley's public statement laid it out very well. The whole statement is worth the read:



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/26/525745159/after-back-and-forth-ann-coulter-speech-is-off-at-uc-berkeley

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/04/26/new-message-from-the-chancellor-about-possible-coulter-visit/?utm_content=bufferfa415&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Makes sense, like how women stir up rape by dressing provocatively.

The people commuting violence have 100 per cent of the responsibility, if the police feel Ill equipped then start handing out harsher sentances to those caught, bring down numbers by attrition.

Once a few professional careers have been ruined by criminal charges, you will notice a sharp drop in numbers.

 

[dudalb]

I have a plague on both your houses attitude toward Coulter speaking at Berkeley. I despise Coulter, but think she has a right to speak. But I also think that Conservative Groups who invited her were deliberately trying to be in your face and provocative..in other words,acting like the lefties in Berkeley.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have a plague on both your houses attitude toward Coulter speaking at Berkeley. I despise Coulter, but think she has a right to speak. But I also think that Conservative Groups who invited her were deliberately trying to be in your face and provocative..in other words,acting like the lefties in Berkeley.

The group that invited her was not conservative, in fact a couple of weeks ago they had some Obama staffer at the school.

No Black Bloc stooges that time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...uc-berkeley-heres-why/?utm_term=.f61e9bac064d

be forewarned, dude needs an editor.

 

[sadhatter]

I have a plague on both your houses attitude toward Coulter speaking at Berkeley. I despise Coulter, but think she has a right to speak. But I also think that Conservative Groups who invited her were deliberately trying to be in your face and provocative..in other words,acting like the lefties in Berkeley.

With the exception of them wanting to talk not hurt people.

It sucks someone can waddle right up to the line of a law but are protected until they cross it. ...until it's your side that wants that protection.

 

[Mycroft]

Once a few professional careers have been ruined by criminal charges, you will notice a sharp drop in numbers.

Speaking of which, do we know what happened to that community college professor who whacked the kid with the bike lock?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[marplots]

I disagree. It isn't Coulter that started the "fight", it is the people using violence and intimidation to repeatedly shut down free speech. In this case it is absolutely as much about being able to speak as about what she has to say.

Of course it is. You can argue that it isn't only about free speech, but that doesn't make it not about free speech. That is inherently part of the issue here, there is no getting around that.

One side wants to speak and the other wants to use violence and threats of violence to stop that.

Suppose she spoke and half the audience decided to "speak" at the same time - shouting, screaming, whatever. Coulter gets drowned out. Everyone in the audience has the same right to free speech. Everyone gets to exercise their right equally. And yet no real speech occurs at all.

There is nothing particularly special about this venue at this time - except it is known opposing forces will be present. If Coulter (or anyone at all) has a realistic alternative (I suggested a webcast) then there is no reason not to use one of those options. After all, we live in an age where communication is frightfully easy - I can live stream my mass shooting and publish my manifesto on facebook.

Here's why it isn't about free speech. Coulter (and her supporters) are constructing an event - a particular set of circumstances in a particular place. Their opponents (and supporters) are also constructing an event - the battle between the factions. None of that is about speaking freely, it's about getting physical and passionate to demonstrate how strongly you feel about your ideas.

They could announce a speech by Coulter, a time and a place, and Coulter wouldn't even have to show up for it to accomplish all that is desired by both sides. The victim choosing simply doesn't work when all the kids are bullies. There's no asymmetry here at all.

 

[sadhatter]

Suppose she spoke and half the audience decided to "speak" at the same time - shouting, screaming, whatever. Coulter gets drowned out. Everyone in the audience has the same right to free speech. Everyone gets to exercise their right equally. And yet no real speech occurs at all.

There is nothing particularly special about this venue at this time - except it is known opposing forces will be present. If Coulter (or anyone at all) has a realistic alternative (I suggested a webcast) then there is no reason not to use one of those options. After all, we live in an age where communication is frightfully easy - I can live stream my mass shooting and publish my manifesto on facebook.

Here's why it isn't about free speech. Coulter (and her supporters) are constructing an event - a particular set of circumstances in a particular place. Their opponents (and supporters) are also constructing an event - the battle between the factions. None of that is about speaking freely, it's about getting physical and passionate to demonstrate how strongly you feel about your ideas.

They could announce a speech by Coulter, a time and a place, and Coulter wouldn't even have to show up for it to accomplish all that is desired by both sides. The victim choosing simply doesn't work when all the kids are bullies. There's no asymmetry here at all.

Again, they have no right to cause a safety concern for her, she is doing nothing illegal, like it or not she has a right to be there as invited. Intimidation is a vile tactic, plain and simple, and is in the face of garbage like that, that things like time and place do matter, they made it matter.

She is a victim, she may be a rich white horrible victim but a victim none the less. In a civilized society we don't stand for violence against thoughts.

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppose she spoke and half the audience decided to "speak" at the same time - shouting, screaming, whatever. Coulter gets drowned out. Everyone in the audience has the same right to free speech. Everyone gets to exercise their right equally. And yet no real speech occurs at all

This is wrong. Everone there does NOT have the same right to speak. The venue was reserved for Coulter to speak. It isn't a public park or a street corner. She had priority at that venue, because of her invitation.

And because of this error, none of the rest of your argument follows.

 

[marplots]

This is wrong. Everone there does NOT have the same right to speak. The venue was reserved for Coulter to speak. It isn't a public park or a street corner. She had priority at that venue, because of her invitation.

And because of this error, none of the rest of your argument follows.

But that's exactly the point being missed. When someone tells me Rosa Parks stood for civil rights, I am not entitled to say "Well, they run the bus however they want, and she has no right to challenge the rules." Why? Because Mrs. Parks is raising the stakes and pointing out a higher injustice.

If you reserve the venue for Coulter, you are necessarily denying it for another speaker/speakers. And worse, what those people have to say is only going to be said if Coulter appears - there's no reason for the ranting unless she's there to rail at. The people they want to speak to are Coulter and her supporters.

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.

Both sides are claiming the high ground here. Neither are victims. Both say they are acting outside the social norms because this time higher principles demand and justify the excesses. They are both wrong.

 

[sadhatter]

But that's exactly the point being missed. When someone tells me Rosa Parks stood for civil rights, I am not entitled to say "Well, they run the bus however they want, and she has no right to challenge the rules." Why? Because Mrs. Parks is raising the stakes and pointing out a higher injustice.

If you reserve the venue for Coulter, you are necessarily denying it for another speaker/speakers. And worse, what those people have to say is only going to be said if Coulter appears - there's no reason for the ranting unless she's there to rail at. The people they want to speak to are Coulter and her supporters.

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.

Both sides are claiming the high ground here. Neither are victims. Both say they are acting outside the social norms because this time higher principles demand and justify the excesses. They are both wrong.

People who respond to words with violence or threats thereof are criminals, criminals have victims. The speaker is but one.

And your arguement boils down to if you think a concept is important enough the speaker has a right to exercise their rights. Sorry but your opinion means no more than your conservative counterpart who believes what she is saying is important. We live in a society of different ideas, no one political side gets to decide what is and isn't important enough to defend, we defend the right to speak for all, because that is the fair and moral way.

If you feel rights vary depending on the person our political ideas are diametrically opposed. My right to free speech means nothing if others do not have the same. In sorry you don't feel that way.

 

[mgidm86]

But that's exactly the point being missed. When someone tells me Rosa Parks stood for civil rights, I am not entitled to say "Well, they run the bus however they want, and she has no right to challenge the rules." Why? Because Mrs. Parks is raising the stakes and pointing out a higher injustice.

If you reserve the venue for Coulter, you are necessarily denying it for another speaker/speakers. And worse, what those people have to say is only going to be said if Coulter appears - there's no reason for the ranting unless she's there to rail at. The people they want to speak to are Coulter and her supporters.

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.

Both sides are claiming the high ground here. Neither are victims. Both say they are acting outside the social norms because this time higher principles demand and justify the excesses. They are both wrong.

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.

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.