“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Meadmaker]

Here we may part ways. But setting that aside, have we yet recognized that whatever subset of protestors is threatening violence (which presumably they can deliver on, judging by the last event), that subset is also infringing on the rights of peaceful protestors who simply want to disagree with whomever is speaking?

If a threat of violence is enough to shut down an event, then everyone who wished to speak (both inside and outside the venue) is crushed by the same boot. How then can we claim freedom of speech as sacrosanct while simultaneously cancelling the event?


The answer for me is that, despite the rhetoric, free speech is not sacrosanct (or if it is in the abstract, it isn't in the particular) and in light of that fact there are useful compromises to be had. Haven't they already come up with a compromise by rescheduling?

ETA: I see that Ms. Coulter has rejected the rescheduling.

I think what I, and probably many others, would say is that free speech is in fact sacrosanct, and that cancelling the event was a profane act.


Sometimes, practical considerations force actions that would otherwise be considered profane. Applying that to this situation, we might say that the event had to be cancelled for safety reasons. Ok. Very well. If that's true, it should not be considered a compromise, but a surrender, and those who must reluctantly give in to a threat of violence should at least condemn those who made it necessary by their threats of violence.

 

[surreptitious57]

dont the protestors also have the right to protest?

Peaceful protest - yes. But using violence as a means to prevent someone from speaking? No. Absolutely not. Do not like what someone
has to say? Then either engage them or ignore them. Taking the law into your own hands because you think the end justifies the means
is not an option here. And those that routinely engage in such type of behaviour should be made to accept responsibility for their actions

 

[Belz...]

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'...

Well, "left" and "right" are pretty different if you look at the definition. But if you want it short: the far-right is afraid of difference; the far-left is afraid of conformity.

and the end of the spectrum doesn't really seem meaningful to me in light of the totalitarian intolerance involved.

That is absolutely true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Agreed on the whole of your post.

With respect to the highlighted portion... As a species? I think we've already been there - it's part of the first amendment, after all. Culturally, however, we seem to have strayed a bit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, of course. But don't the protestors also have the right to protest?

Of course protestors have the right to protest. They do not, however, have the right to threaten violence against the people they're protesting against.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Maybe being outnumbered ten to one and not wanting to shoot people is a factor?

That's what we call "mob rule". Not something I find acceptable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I ask because Coulter is bowing to the wishes of someone here - the University, the sponsoring organization, threats from protesting groups, policing authority concerns... she doesn't seem to care as much about her right to speak as we do.

If the threat of violence was only a risk for Coulter, you may have a point. But it's not just her, it's anyone who might support her, anyone who shows up. It's threats of violence against bystanders.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Allow me to recap.
Coulter agrees to speak. Everyone is happy to let her speak. Except the protestors, who threaten violence if she dares. No one wants to foot the bill to allow her to speak unmolested. (The price of free speech and all that.)

Is that it in a nutshell?

Not really no. The protesters threaten violence against attendees and the venue. They threaten everyone. They don't just want to silence her (which is repugnant enough), they want to coerce through violence anyone willing to listen to her and anyone willing to provide a platform for her to speak.

How is this NOT appalling to you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, "left" and "right" are pretty different if you look at the definition. But if you want it short: the far-right is afraid of difference; the far-left is afraid of conformity.

That is absolutely true.

So if left/right is a meaningless distinction in light of the totalitarian intolerance involved, then shouldn't we be able to ignore that distinction as meaningless, and go ahead and speak to them as being effectively the same in action and impact?

 

[marplots]

Not really no. The protesters threaten violence against attendees and the venue. They threaten everyone. They don't just want to silence her (which is repugnant enough), they want to coerce through violence anyone willing to listen to her and anyone willing to provide a platform for her to speak.

How is this NOT appalling to you?

Probably because I am jaded and cynical. The world I inhabit is full of force, threats of force and violence of various flavors. To reach "appalling," something would have to rise above the norm in a rather more dramatic fashion that we have here. Murdering your five kids by drowning them one at a time is appalling. Acting like a soccer hooligan? Not so much.

I'm mostly irritated by the assumption that there aren't options and choices available, all down the line. I dislike it when agency is removed from a participant to simplify the narrative.

 

[Belz...]

So if left/right is a meaningless distinction in light of the totalitarian intolerance involved, then shouldn't we be able to ignore that distinction as meaningless, and go ahead and speak to them as being effectively the same in action and impact?

Well, as I said in the post you quoted, they are NOT the same. "authoritarian" is mostly independent of your left-right leaning. Also, dealing with right-wing authoritarians might not require the same sort of intevention as dealing with left-wing ones.

 

[The Big Dog]

I see the Black Bloc scum was out "expressing themselves" by destroying property, and bringing masks, rocks, marbles and slingshots to protest violence or something on May Day.

I did enjoy when the cops perp walked the worst of the stooges to the patrol wagon and the citizens were cheering.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Probably because I am jaded and cynical. The world I inhabit is full of force, threats of force and violence of various flavors. To reach "appalling," something would have to rise above the norm in a rather more dramatic fashion that we have here. Murdering your five kids by drowning them one at a time is appalling. Acting like a soccer hooligan? Not so much.

I'm mostly irritated by the assumption that there aren't options and choices available, all down the line. I dislike it when agency is removed from a participant to simplify the narrative.

I don't think anyone has assumed there are no other options available. I think it's a matter of believing (strongly) that nobody should be forced into a situation where their agency is limited by threat of violence.

I dislike it when agency is removed from a participant by a blatant violation of our fundamental constitutional rights.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, as I said in the post you quoted, they are NOT the same. "authoritarian" is mostly independent of your left-right leaning. Also, dealing with right-wing authoritarians might not require the same sort of intevention as dealing with left-wing ones.

Yes, you said they are not the same... but you also agreed that within this context, the distinction of right/left is immaterial in light of the behavior exhibited.

I'm inclined to think that dealing with people who employ violence and threats to deprive others of their civil liberties shouldn't depend on what their political beliefs are, nor should it depend on what they claim as their reasons. This the right-wing/left-wing distinction is meaningless in this context.