Support NeoGAF

[Lord Frieza]

Thank you THANK YOU. I said this same thing for Milo, and even Richard Spencer. The moment we stop debating their points with a CLEARLY stronger point of view, the moment theirs gains leverage. I think those on the left think that they're living on a slippery slope trying to stifle free speech, and act with violent protest, the moment they assume it's acceptable for them to reciprocate, or even feel like they're taking the high ground.

But folks keep thinking that this approach actually works.

So Neo-Nazis who advocate the genocide of black people, and a man who reads off the names of LGBTQ and undocumented students for them to be bullied is a fundamental aspect of American society and beliefs then? Welp.

 

[Frozenprince]

Thank you THANK YOU. I said this same thing for Milo, and even Richard Spencer. The moment we stop debating their points with a CLEARLY stronger point of view, the moment theirs gains leverage. I think those on the left think that they're living on a slippery slope trying to stifle free speech, and act with violent protest, the moment they assume it's acceptable for them to reciprocate, or even feel like they're taking the high ground.

But folks keep thinking that this approach actually works.

Mhm. Mhm.

Except what took Milo down was pedophilia comments. Not anything about his hate mongering.

Richard Spenser is still going strong so.

What exactly has debating them accomplished? What has debating any bigot or idiot done? We can't get you guys to even SEE OUR POINT OF VIEW and you're supposed to be on our fucking side.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

Our laws and norms are absolutely not in favor of an inalienable right to free speech and I'm not sure why you would think that. There are countless limits to speech. There are limits to what we can say: libel laws, sedition laws, criminal codes against inciting violence and so on. There are also laws about where we are able to speak. I don't get to come over and sit on your toilet to yell about global currency just because I want to. You have rights to property and safety that absolutely supersede my rights to say what, I want, where I want.

So you think a University doesn't get to make its own decisions about who speaks on their campus in an official capacity? That the First Amendment, which only states that the Government can not control speech, can be used to force a school to allow anyone to say anything at any school on the school's dime?

This isn't about tolerance. It's a fundamental debate about wether or not an organization's rights can be abridged. I'm not sure why you would take such a regressive stance that, at it's core, argues that potential speakers have more of a say what happens on a campus than a University.

 

[MUnited83]

It was violent as fuck, especially in Confederate states. Protestors swayed public opinion best when MLK and Gandhi spread and enforced peaceful protests. I've read plenty of History in that Era, have you?

Hard to justify bashing skulls in when they're dressed in their church outfits and not resisting.

You don't seem to have read plenty of history at all, since you don't seem to know about the Stonewall riots, or that all the peaceful protests promoted by MLK still got him assassinated.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Safety concerns for faculty and students override agreed upon speaking engagements. And they offered her an alternative date.

.....and do you think I'm saying they have to do more than that, or....

 

[Slayven]

Thank you THANK YOU. I said this same thing for Milo, and even Richard Spencer. The moment we stop debating their points with a CLEARLY stronger point of view, the moment theirs gains leverage. I think those on the left think that they're living on a slippery slope trying to stifle free speech, and act with violent protest, the moment they assume it's acceptable for them to reciprocate, or even feel like they're taking the high ground.

But folks keep thinking that this approach actually works.

My humanity and right to life is not an opinion nor up for debate

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

How is he NOT?

I think Ron Swanson can help explain things on that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64fFEzmauYs

 

[lightskintwin]

Although he meant it in a Black and White context, it could be applied to a Right and Left context, in the immortal words of the late great comedian Patrice O'Neal, "You allow them to say whatever the fuck they wanna say, so YOU can say whatever the fuck you wanna say".

 

[Lois_Lane]

It was violent as fuck, especially in Confederate states. Protestors swayed public opinion best when MLK and Gandhi spread and enforced peaceful protests. I've read plenty of History in that Era, have you?

Hard to justify bashing skulls in when they're dressed in their church outfits and not resisting.

Except they were happy to do so until the govt came out in force with guns. And what about stonewall riot which really kicked off the gay rights movement? Or the effect the black panthers had on national discourse? Or the civil war? We didn't end slavery with a hug and a kiss but with bayonets and a death toll that killed more americans than any other war in our history?

 

[Buckle]

The point is not to convince her, it's to convince the people she speaks to first.

I think the better point is to not normalize her behavior and regressive views as something thats actually worth having a discussion over at a university.

The more we treat those like Coulter as average rational people with valid talking points who just happen to have something different to say rather than her being batshit crazy, the more dangerous they get.

Becuase then we're taught and our are kids are aswell that theres nothing really wrong with it, its just a different side of the argument rather than something that is completely 100% fucked up.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Although he meant it in a Black and White context, it could be applied to a Right and Left context, in the immortal words of the late great comedian Patrice O'Neal, "You allow them to say whatever the fuck they wanna say, so YOU can say whatever the fuck you wanna say".

She can say anything she wants. She doesn't have the right to be provided a podium on the exact place and time she wants.

 

[polyh3dron]

It literally is. Educate yourself.


This has nothing to do with protest. You clearly don't even understand the basic facts of this situation.

If this is the level of knowledge people are coming to this discussion with, I'll have it elsewhere.

1st amendment means the government can't and won't restrict free speech. A college is a private entity, and furthermore is not required to provide a platform for any speech that it doesn't like.

 

[Carcetti]

Which is exactly why you don't get violent. Every successful civil rights movement in the past 100 years was passive in nature. Turn the other cheek, etc.

Modern education is really going down the drain.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Except they were happy to do so until the govt came out in force with guns. And what about stonewall riot which really kicked off the gay rights movement? Or the effect the black panthers had on national discourse? Or the civil war? We didn't end slavery with a hug and a kiss but with bayonets and a death toll that killed more americans than any other war in our history?

Oh you didn't know? The Civil War is called The Great Civil Debate in some textbooks.

 

[Siegcram]

.....and do you think I'm saying they have to do more than that, or....

I don't really care, but those two points are the reason for her being denied the initial speaking slot, not a sudden loss of the protection of the first amendment. She still thoroughly enjoys that on any public space on campus she can find.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Oh you didn't know? The Civil War is called The Great Civil Debate in some textbooks.

How do you guys think a modern civil war would go down?

 

[Erevador]

If the mainstream left fully adopts the attitude that predominates this thread that will be the end of them as a viable force in American politics.

It sure will be interesting to watch what happens from here.

Good luck.

 

[lightskintwin]

She can say anything she wants. She doesn't have the right to be provided a podium on the exact place and time she wants.

As long as it's legally within their right. Is it in this case? Has that been established? In the USA today article someone posted, it appears we're in a legal grey area with a Public University.

 

[legacyzero]

If the core founding principles of the US are vapid, than I accept the charge of vapidity.

I've found this thread an entirely depressing experience.

Ive tried this approach before. Some folks who think this way are also guilty of what they accuse their ideological foes of being: unable to change.

 

[Slayven]

As long as it's legally within their right. Is it in this case? Has that been established? In the USA today article someone posted, it appears we're in a legal grey area with a Public University.

They offered to reschedule and she declined, so it is on her

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Thank you THANK YOU. I said this same thing for Milo, and even Richard Spencer. The moment we stop debating their points with a CLEARLY stronger point of view, the moment theirs gains leverage. I think those on the left think that they're living on a slippery slope trying to stifle free speech, and act with violent protest, the moment they assume it's acceptable for them to reciprocate, or even feel like they're taking the high ground.

But folks keep thinking that this approach actually works.

Round and Round we go. Debate this, debate that, but none of you on here are ever gonna budge an inch. But screw all that, lets go yet another round with some popular white supremacists at some public university. It's so necessary.

 

[lightskintwin]

They offered to reschedule and she declined, so it is on her

I already noted that, but the discussion has turned to her right to be able to speak at a Public University.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Oh you didn't know? The Civil War is called The Great Civil Debate in some textbooks.

I heard we all sat at a grand feast and both sides debated on whether or not black people's humanity was deemed of equal importance to white people's. After a 30 long days of debates at public forums, society agreed unanimously that black people were in fact deserving of their freedom, and that's how slavery ended in the US. Not though violence, but through both sides coming together and talking about it.

Thank you Frederick Lincoln King III.

 

[Cyframe]

Thank you THANK YOU. I said this same thing for Milo, and even Richard Spencer. The moment we stop debating their points with a CLEARLY stronger point of view, the moment theirs gains leverage. I think those on the left think that they're living on a slippery slope trying to stifle free speech, and act with violent protest, the moment they assume it's acceptable for them to reciprocate, or even feel like they're taking the high ground.

Tell me why Milo has the right to violate title ix protections when he was singling out a trans student at one of his speaking events.

Nazism shouldn't even be a debate topic. There is no debate to be had.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Fuck Coulter and fuck Maher

 

[Lois_Lane]

If the mainstream left fully adopts the attitude that predominates this thread that will be the end of them as a viable force in American politics.

It sure will be interesting to watch what happens from here.

Good luck.

The left loses but America will be done as a world leader for anything. Y'all forget we aren't just our social issues. We're the ones who are most pro-science, pro-education, pro-renewable energy, and pro-income equality. We're the ones who've been driving this nation since the beginning, from the first moment the words "all men are created equal". We go, so goes the nation.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Ive tried this approach before. Some folks who think this way are also guilty of what they accuse their ideological foes of being: unable to change.

And yet neither of you addressed this simple question:

So the free speech for Neo-Nazis and eugenic pushers are a fundamental part of America? What about speaker who read off names of LGBTQ or undocumented students for them to be bullied by supporters like Bill's recent pedo-loving friend Milo did? Are those fundamental parts of American society as well?

How about it?

How do you guys think a modern civil war would go down?

It's already happening, culturally, and this is part of it. It's eventually come to widescale violence in the literal sense, though. That is basically unavoidable at this point.

 

[The Kree]

How do you guys think a modern civil war would go down?

With you stepping out of the way to watch other people die.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I already noted that, but the discussion has turned to her right to be able to speak at a Public University.

She has a right to speak but not to a venue. She can go speak in the courtyard and Berkeley can't do a thing about it. But Berkeley can refuse her a venue (not that they did, but the safety of students overrides her demands of a certain date) and that does not encroach on her freedom of speech. And it's not like the government is ever going to jail her so really people can stop invoking the first amendment anyway.

 

[ClosingADoor]

As long as it's legally within their right. Is it in this case? Has that been established? In the USA today article someone posted, it appears we're in a legal grey area with a Public University.

Well, she was offered a new date. So they are not stopping her from speaking.

Outside of that, she should go to court I guess if she wants to.

It's just concerning that any time an event like this pops up, a lot of people jump on the free speech train as if there are no limits to it, and everyone needs to put up with what someone is saying. Your free speech protects you from government prosecution. If I went to a speech of her, yell through it and get kicked out, is my free speech taken away for example?

 

[Lord Frieza]

If the mainstream left fully adopts the attitude that predominates this thread that will be the end of them as a viable force in American politics.

It sure will be interesting to watch what happens from here.

Good luck.

You can't even defend your own grand standing defense against a simple question. Maybe you need some of your own good luck.

 

[Zeyphersan]

Yeah, this. Let people say whatever dumb shit they want. That way we can call them out on it. Let's get them out in the open so we can deal with their idiotic views.

Magee calls out Coulter all the time for her ridiculous views.

She's a public figure, it's not like there'd be some crazy revelation. We know her stance, we know her topics. She's in the open right now. She has a platform literally whenever she wants. Why is this the hill to die on?

 

[fester]

If the core founding principles of the US are vapid, than I accept the charge of vapidity.

I've found this thread an entirely depressing experience.

You don't appear to understand what those principles really are, and so continue to flaunt your empty ignorance in front of everyone. If you educated yourself on what the First Amendment was created to do, you might not be so depressed right now. (I'll give you a starting point: it's not there to give Ann Coulter a speaking engagement anywhere.)

 

[boiled goose]

She has a right to speak but not to a venue. She can go speak in the courtyard and Berkeley can't do a thing about it. But Berkeley can refuse her a venue (not that they did, but the safety of students overrides her demands of a certain date) and that does not encroach on her freedom of speech. And it's not like the government is ever going to jail her so really people can stop invoking the first amendment anyway.

This.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

I have lived my whole life in Alabama. I've seen racism, homophobia, xenophobia, ultra-conservative Christian values, etc. I've been exposed to all of it, yet somehow I'm pretty dang liberal/progressive. I get that it's scary and frustrating to see people in authority, let alone the fucking president, spreading hateful messages. Even still, I believe in the true definition of Free Speech and not the flimsy cherry picked definition wherein we create polarizing bubbles of accepted discourse.

I'm strongly Pro-Choice, but if somebody who is Pro-Life is asked to speak at a university that's largely conservative I think it's okay to let those people speak. Protests should be about important things, and while I don't want to tell people what to protest about I am alarmed at how many protests seem to be popping up trying to shut down discourse. It's almost ironic.

Thank you THANK YOU. I said this same thing for Milo, and even Richard Spencer. The moment we stop debating their points with a CLEARLY stronger point of view, the moment theirs gains leverage. I think those on the left think that they're living on a slippery slope trying to stifle free speech, and act with violent protest, the moment they assume it's acceptable for them to reciprocate, or even feel like they're taking the high ground.

But folks keep thinking that this approach actually works.

You mean, like any argument you think you have by throwing a fit about what somebody has to say, versus engaging in aggressive debate and winning with stronger ideas? Or are you all out of ideas?

Naive at best.

This isn't a debate. This is radicalization. And each and every one of you are using the 1st Amendment to defend that. Or implicit bias (seeing the best in the folks you can relate to).

Their rights are not being stifled when the people or the institution, not the government, states that they do not want their platform used for these bigoted lot.


It's like neo-nazis in a rock venue. Many of them try to control the mosh pit, and then pretty much take over the joint. Managers and bouncers who try to speak to them to get them out? Get walked all over, lose the crowd, or worse.

That best case scenario works with like minds. Those who are also looking to engage in talks. They are not.

So you speak their language by getting them the fuck out of there by any means necessary. Win the crowd back. And if you don't have the physical resources for that, use whatever leverage you got. But the goal is the same.

They. Must. Go.


Evil prevails when good people do nothing. Nothing comes in many forms.


The one I'm seeing in this thread? Is the one MLK Jr. hated enough to infamously write about.

 

[lightskintwin]

She has a right to speak but not to a venue. She can go speak in the courtyard and Berkeley can't do a thing about it. But Berkeley can refuse her a venue and that does not encroach on her freedom of speech. And it's not like the government is ever going to jail her so really people can stop invoking the first amendment anyway.

If she has no legal right to a venue at a Public University, then what are we debating? LOL

 

[Frozenprince]

If she has no legal right to a venue at a Public University, then what are we debating? LOL

Utterly nothing. As always.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

Thank you THANK YOU. I said this same thing for Milo, and even Richard Spencer. The moment we stop debating their points with a CLEARLY stronger point of view, the moment theirs gains leverage. I think those on the left think that they're living on a slippery slope trying to stifle free speech, and act with violent protest, the moment they assume it's acceptable for them to reciprocate, or even feel like they're taking the high ground.

But folks keep thinking that this approach actually works.

You mean, like any argument you think you have by throwing a fit about what somebody has to say, versus engaging in aggressive debate and winning with stronger ideas? Or are you all out of ideas?

Milo literally sexually harassed a student at one of his rallies, forcing her to leave her university. Where do you draw the line between free speech and harassment? I'm all for free speech, but at some point these types of speakers pose a danger to others and should not be given a platform to harass others.

 

[2Smashed4U]

And yet neither of you addressed this simple question:



How about it?



It's already happening, culturally, and this is part of it. It's eventually come to widescale violence in the literal sense, though. That is basically unavoidable at this point.

If we're at a civil war now, we've always been at a civil war. There is not going to be widespread violence anymore at this point - America is apathetic. And if there is, the modern military would snuff it out immediately.

With you stepping out of the way to watch other people die.

lmao, k.

 

[Snowybreak]

If she has no legal right to a venue at a Public University, then what are we debating? LOL

She's been rescheduled. Jesus.

And second, if they saw her as a safety hazard, then yeah, they can deny the request of the student body that invited her.

 

[Angelus Errare]

If she has no legal right to a venue at a Public University, then what are we debating? LOL

People thinking she is owed a venue under the guise of "freedom of speech" because vast majority of people don't know what the fuck freedom of speech means? As is the case with pretty much 99% of GAF debates on freedom of speech to include hilarious hypothetical situations that never happen, and how protesting and consequences also violate freedom of speech somehow.

 

[ClosingADoor]

If she has no legal right to a venue at a Public University, then what are we debating? LOL

People not understanding free speech. Like always when these kind of threads appear.

 

[MotionBlue]

Except they were happy to do so until the govt came out in force with guns. And what about stonewall riot which really kicked off the gay rights movement? Or the effect the black panthers had on national discourse? Or the civil war? We didn't end slavery with a hug and a kiss but with bayonets and a death toll that killed more americans than any other war in our history?

Yes. Which is the point. The movement did more in 8 years of peaceful civil disobedience than a decade of rioting and violence did. Was their still violence on both sides? Absolutely, I never said there wasn't.

This is getting hard to respond to everyone, too much dog-piling.

 

[lightskintwin]

Utterly nothing. As always.

Regardless of their views if they have a legal right for something, then I'll defend them; if not, fuck 'em. LOL

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Ive tried this approach before. Some folks who think this way are also guilty of what they accuse their ideological foes of being: unable to change.

Show the receipts were you've budged an inch on any argument you've ever had on here, now amplify how rare that is with decades in the making ideological, racist provocateurs, already with a large open platform they're making millions off of, with hardcore supporters who actively seek them out.

What do you think you're accomplishing here? What did Bill Mauer accomplish by having Milo on his show? What do respected Universities have to accomplish with Coulter?

 

[Frozenprince]

Show the receipts were you've budged an inch on any argument you've ever had on here, now amplify how rare that is with decades in the making ideological, racist provocateurs, already with a large open platform they're making millions off of, with hardcore supporters who actively seek them out.

What do you think you're accomplishing here? What did Bill Mauer accomplish by having Milo on his show? What do respected Universities have to accomplish with Coulter?

Oh oh teacher. Teacher.

The answer is "use these bigots for ratings and money without regards to the damage they do".

 

[Rymuth]

Didn't they fuck in World War Z (The novel)

I saw that part and instantly recognized them.

 

[Lois_Lane]

Yes. Which is the point. The movement did more in 8 years of peaceful civil disobedience than a decade of rioting and violence did. Was their still violence on both sides? Absolutely, I never said there wasn't.

This is getting hard to respond to everyone, too much dog-piling.

What now? Stonewall happened after MLK died and the Panther's still had most of their members once he was gone. And there's no way MLK would be as effective if the other option wasn't more race riots. White America isn't that kind.

 

[Lord Frieza]

If we're at a civil war now, we've always been at a civil war. There is not going to be widespread violence anymore at this point - America is apathetic. And if there is, the modern military would snuff it out immediately..

Anyone who thinks another civil war like event isn't coming is just being incredibly naive, but you're right, the military we have now will quickly put an end to it, and what happens will just depend on where the tides are blowing at that moment in history. And if you don't think we're in the midst of a cultural civil war, or at least that it's amped up significantly within the last decade, you are as culturally tone deaf about the radicalization happening in this country right now.

 

[Snowybreak]

Regardless of their views if they have a legal right for something, then I'll defend them; if not, fuck 'em. LOL

Again, it isn't a legal right to speak at a public University.