Support NeoGAF

[starchild excalibur]

If we use a slippery slope argument for this, what else will we use a slippery slope argument on in the future? Slippery slope arguments are a slippery slope.

Instead of arguing about how a hypothetical event will be hypothetically interpreted to effect other, even more hypothetical events, why don't we talk about the actual case at hand.

Does an organization have a right to control who it invites to speak at it and what security costs they endure? Does Free Speech mean that Berkley doesn't get autonomy over it's own affairs? Does the right to Free Speech create a moral or legal obligation to listen?

No one's arguing for hypothetical events. My argument is that if a non-violent act (speaking) can lead to violent behavior (not just protesting, which is fine, but violent protesting), you shouldn't censor the non-violent act. You should instead focus on stopping those who would use the act of speaking as an excuse to be violent.

On your other points, I never disagreed with you. In fact I stated that the First Amendment doesn't guarantee Ann Coulter a venue to speak. If a University doesn't want to host a speaker, they don't have to. And if she was to say her 1st Amendment rights were being violated as a result, she'd be idiotic to say so. But just don't use the argument of "We're doing it to prevent a violent reaction." That's kowtowing to those who would seek to be violent.

 

[Foggy]

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.

The reality of what we're living is depressing. Trying to cushion it with meaningless platitudes provides no comfort and offers no path forward.

 

[ClosingADoor]

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.

We're in a media war mostly. I swear, take away most media from the equation and a ton of the issues we have now would disappear within a few months. But there is money to be made with this stuff. All these right wing leaders and speakers? In it for the money, they don't give a fuck. Take their media platform and income away and they are gone.

 

[lightskintwin]

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

This is what the thread turned into, how about reading all my posts in this thread before regurgitating the same shit I already know and have acknowledged.

 

[MotionBlue]

What now? Stonewall happened after MLK died and the Panther's still had most of their members. 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.

I'm referring to public opinion. I'm not very good at conveying, sorry. White America is not very kind, I agree.

 

[David H Wong]

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.

No, according to this thread, the public has never changed its mind on an issue ever in history without a violent war killing one side or the other. That's why there is no such thing as elections or changes in public opinion due to education or debate - it's either bloodshed or nothing. There is no such thing as governments - legislators would just murder each other, it's not possible to come to compromises. Only violence solves differences. Obviously.

Like others in this thread, I am sad for the state of our public education system.

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

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.

Now the bolded is likely true but disagreed on the former, your social circle may be apathetic, but I see a lot of movement from college-age people, ya know, the groups that typically are the most vocal and in turn tend to be the rallying forces for change, even if it is radicalized in nature. There's only more and more young people flocking into that system every year. It may not happen overnight but I'm not about to discount the possibility of something bigger occurring just cause some thirty somethings are happy with their rote Netflix lifestyle.

 

[aspaceman55]

[]

 

[Lord Frieza]

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.

I've brought that up three separate times for those guys. Been awfully silent. People always seem to bitch out defending Milo when you pull that card out. Guess shit gets a little too real with that.

 

[Psychoward]

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.

maybe you should take another look at the first amendment before claiming you're fighting for the founding principles of the US

oh also while we're at it the US was founded on the backs of racist slave labor, now that's depressing

 

[Frozenprince]

No, according to this thread, the public has never changed its mind on an issue ever in history without a violent war killing one side or the other. That's why there is no such thing as elections or changes in public opinion due to education or debate - it's either bloodshed or nothing. There is no such thing as governments - legislators would just murder each other, it's not possible to come to compromises. Only violence solves differences. Obviously.

Like others in this thread, I am sad for the state of our public education system.

Nobody said anything like that. You're cherry picking as you always do.

The point isn't that violence is the only answer. The point is that people insist violence is NEVER the answer. Which is wrong.

But you know that. Also how sweet, oh so subtly calling all of us idiots at the end there.

 

[ShironRedshift]

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.

Dude. Dude.

Think about how much you have posted on this site alone--just on NeoGAF, and just on the subject of politics. Think about how many hundreds of posts you have on these subjects. But yet despite all that, we haven't even been able to get through to someone like you. If we can't get through to a supposed ally like you and are on completely different wavelengths, what hope is there for people like Coulter or Milo or Spencer? We can't even get through to you that it wasn't "debate" that took Milo down but a really incredible stroke of luck that he turned out to be a pedophile-sympathizer, which turned out to be a step too far. Not any debate took him down--just him turning out to think pedophilia isn't that bad.

Same with say O'Reilly. No amount of debate with him or anything took him off the air. It's only once advertisers pulled their ads once he turned out to have sexually harassed women (again, not for anything he said, or any amount of debate, or even just the fact that he's a women-harassing pile of garbage by itself got Fox to pull him, not even that was enough, but rather advertisers pulling their ads because of that fact is what got Fox to act) that made him get kicked. And even then he's very likely to wind up finding some gig elsewhere, taking his audience with him, and being just fine and things not being anything different at all.

And of course the same was true with the transgender bathroom bill in North Carolina. Was it "debate" or whatever that got the Republicans that supported that shit scared? No, it was the NCAA and other businesses and all the toooooootaly, super-evil-inherently-because-they're-billion-dollar-corporations-and-all-those-guys-are-inherently-evil-because-wall-street pulling their money from the state that got those motherfuckers to even somewhat consider changing their minds (and even there, even after all that, they still tried all manner of bullshit and hemming and hawing).

But despite your hundreds of posts on this site, despite all the debate you've done, we can't even get a supposed ally like you on your side and to understand this. If debating you is like trying to lift the world on our shoulders, then what hope is there for anything to be gained from debating people like Milo or Coulter? If just debating you, an ally, is like pulling blood from a stone on these issues, how can you even begin to attempt to argue in good faith that there's anything at all to be gained from debating people like this?

The fact that debating an ally like you is like pulling blood from a stone is the direct counter-point to every single thing you're saying here. That you don't see that and continue down this road really says it all and is better than any argument I could ever make myself, so thanks for that.

 

[Snowybreak]

Never mind. Not worth it.

 

[Psychoward]

No, according to this thread, the public has never changed its mind on an issue ever in history without a violent war killing one side or the other. That's why there is no such thing as elections or changes in public opinion due to education or debate - it's either bloodshed or nothing. There is no such thing as governments - legislators would just murder each other, it's not possible to come to compromises. Only violence solves differences. Obviously.

Like others in this thread, I am sad for the state of our public education system.

You should get a medal for building up the most condescending strawman in the thread.

 

[Frozenprince]

You should get a medal for building up the most condescending strawman in the thread.

It's his speciality.

 

[Lois_Lane]

No, according to this thread, the public has never changed its mind on an issue ever in history without a violent war killing one side or the other. That's why there is no such thing as elections or changes in public opinion due to education or debate - it's either bloodshed or nothing. There is no such thing as governments - legislators would just murder each other, it's not possible to come to compromises. Only violence solves differences. Obviously.

Like others in this thread, I am sad for the state of our public education system.

David. I used to love your articles but goddamn did they get as strawmanny as this post. We're not talking about just violent wars here. Were the Stonewall Riots a violent war? Were the Black Panther's a violent war? Violence(both for and against progressive causes) are as American as apple pie. There are very few incidents you could point to in our history that isn't accompanied by some type of violence. Even the women's vote didn't get ratified without some hands being thrown. Fix your smug ignorance.

 

[Lord Frieza]

We're in a media war mostly. I swear, take away most media from the equation and a ton of the issues we have now would disappear within a few months. But there is money to be made with this stuff. All these right wing leaders and speakers? In it for the money, they don't give a fuck. Take their media platform and income away and they are gone.

Well, I half agree. Someone like Coulter is probably in just for the money, but others like Spencer are in it to spread his message as much, if not more so, than the money. There are true believers in the top ranks.

 

[theignoramus]

Bill Maher loves giving Coulter a soap box to spread her asinine views.

People like Maher have little to no skin and the game, so they think casual public debates about the humanity of people belonging to a specific race, ethnic group or religion is fun & games with no serious repercussions. Goddammit, you ought to be able to sit there and take it when a right winger designates members of your tribe as the lower breed of humanity.

 

[Jmanunknown]

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

Oh no people understand free speech but they do not like when certain people use free speech like for example Colin Kaepernick. Some people would defend to the death a person like Ann Coulter and free speech but that goes out the window when someone like Colin Kaepernick does the same.

 

[David H Wong]

The reality of what we're living is depressing. Trying to cushion it with meaningless platitudes provides no comfort and offers no path forward.

So it's a meaningless platitude to point out that this is statistically the safest, most peaceful period in human history? That humans are better educated, healthier and more progressive in their attitudes than at any point in our past, by every possible means that those things can be measured?

Do you realize how recently the majority disapproved of interracial marriage? Do you realize how recently discrimination was the law of the land? Holy shit people just have no context for what they're seeing.

The difference between then and now is that the radicals like Milo and Coulter used to be EVERYONE, their position used to be the default. Suggesting that minorities were equal human beings used to be the crazy, radical position that would get you banned or called a crank. The fact that we largely recognize them as dipshits spreading hate for cash is a sign of how far we've come.

You guys act like somebody just invented this thing called racism two years ago and it's spreading like a pandemic. Nothing about what they're doing is new, there's just an uptick in activity (and the size of their audience) due to globalization. But knowledge beats them, it always will.

 

[Lois_Lane]

So it's a meaningless platitude to point out that this is statistically the safest, most peaceful period in human history? That humans are better educated, healthier and more progressive in their attitudes than at any point in our past, by every possible means that those things can be measured?

Do you realize how recently the majority disapproved of interracial marriage? Do you realize how recently discrimination was the law of the land? Holy shit people just have no context for what they're seeing.

The difference between then and now is that the radicals like Milo and Coulter used to be EVERYONE, their position used to be the default. Suggesting that minorities were equal human beings used to be the crazy, radical position that would get you banned or called a crank. The fact that we largely recognize them as dipshits spreading hate for cash is a sign of how far we've come.

You guys act like somebody just invented this thing called racism two years ago and it's spreading like a pandemic. Nothing about what they're doing is new, there's just an uptick in activity (and the size of their audience) due to globalization. But knowledge beats them, it always will.

Knowledge didn't beat them. Consequences beat them and consequences only happen when minorities and their true allies not "allies" stand with them. Schools were desegregated by the National Guard. Not people like you.

 

[Lord Frieza]

So it's a meaningless platitude to point out that this is statistically the safest, most peaceful period in human history? That humans are better educated, healthier and more progressive in their attitudes than at any point in our past, by every possible means that those things can be measured?

Do you realize how recently the majority disapproved of interracial marriage? Do you realize how recently discrimination was the law of the land? Holy shit people just have no context for what they're seeing.

The difference between then and now is that the radicals like Milo and Coulter used to be EVERYONE, their position used to be the default. Suggesting that minorities were equal human beings used to be the crazy, radical position that would get you banned or called a crank. The fact that we largely recognize them as dipshits spreading hate for cash is a sign of how far we've come.

You guys act like somebody just invented this thing called racism two years ago and it's spreading like a pandemic. Nothing about what they're doing is new, there's just an uptick in activity (and the size of their audience) due to globalization. But knowledge beats them, it always will.

Like, nothing about this post really addresses the issues. Obviously, there has been great social progressive over the years, but it's not nearly as much as it should be, and we should be desperately defending the progress we have made instead of taking it for granted. But that really has nothing to do with whether or not we need to roll over for Neo-Nazis and hatemongers.

 

[theignoramus]

Oh no people understand free speech but they do not like when certain people use free speech like for example Colin Kaepernick. Some people would defend to the death a person like Ann Coulter and free speech but that goes out the window when someone like Colin Kaepernick does the same.

These right wingers are the first to scream bloody murder when someone says or does something that offends THEIR sensibilities. They define outrage culture. It sustains their movement.

 

[Siegcram]

Yeah, minorities it's just an "uptick" in racism, get the fuck over it.

Wtf am I even reading on here.

 

[MotionBlue]

Nobody said anything like that. You're cherry picking as you always do.

I feel like I miss a lot of interactions between people, since I stick to gaming side usually. Did I miss something?

The point isn't that violence is the only answer. The point is that people insist violence is NEVER the answer. Which is wrong.

I will always disagree with this. NDP won in Alberta recently. After 50+ years of Conservative rule. lol

But you know that. Also how sweet, oh so subtly calling all of us idiots at the end there.

Well, you've been doing it all thread. Turn around is fair game?

Edit: Wait, am I being called conservative now?

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I dunno Ann Coulter's pretty close to the top of my list of "bad human beings" but as far as I'm aware she doesn't have the same sketchy history of calling out specific students/harassment that Milo does which makes the sentiment the university is confronted with essentially "We don't want her to speak cause we're too afraid of violent backlash", which isn't really a sentiment I'm that comfortable in supporting. Now I don't know the circumstances surrounding her refusal to speak at a date only five days later (she claims she's unavailable), but I don't really object to her speaking at all.

 

[old manatee]

Bigots are in full control of the federal government right now. It's so hilarious to me that anyone is upset that Ann Coulter is being denied one (1) speaking gig.

Like, either you are a bigot, in which case, stop being such a petty bigot. You guys already won everything. There is going to be a big wall in your honor, with a tunnel underneath it for drug running and everything. Stop trying to flush stupid liberal Berkeley's​ stupid liberal head down the toilet to celebrate your victory. Babies.

Or you aren't​ a bigot, in which case, what exactly are you doing with your life in 2017 getting​ worked up about Ann Coulter's first amendment rights to hose down a bunch of students with her hate speech. Who cares if Ann Coulter doesn't get her 8 millionth paid soap box to warn us about how the gays are ruining America. Have the dignity to just bury your head in the sand. I could at least understand that impulse, from a basic biological perspective.

 

[Lord Frieza]

These right wingers are the first to scream bloody murder when someone says or does something that offends THEIR sensibilities. They define outrage culture. It sustains their movement.

Yeah, and as I mentioned earlier, you never see the argument being made that conservative conventions or what have you should reach out to liberal or moderate speakers to allow them to speak. I have never heard someone say that CPAC should do this, and I guarantee that if someone brought it up, anyone from CPAC or who goes to CPAC would shut it down quick and dismiss it.

 

[Frozenprince]

I feel like I miss a lot of interactions between people, since I stick to gaming side usually. Did I miss something?


I will always disagree with this. NDP won in Alberta recently. After 50+ years of Conservative rule. lol



Well, you've been doing it all thread. Turn around is fair game?

What? I said you don't know as much about the civil rights movement as you think you do. That's not me calling you an idiot. That's not me debasing your level of education in general.

Most people don't know enough about it.

Read up on Malcolm X and read Deacons for defense, negroes with guns, and several other literary sources that cover violent civil disobedience.

If you're from Canada that's even more telling you probably don't know a whole lot about it.

 

[aspaceman55]

[]

 

[Cyframe]

Dude. Dude.

Think about how much you have posted on this site alone--just on NeoGAF, and just on the subject of politics. Think about how many hundreds of posts you have on these subjects. But yet despite all that, we haven't even been able to get through to someone like you. If we can't get through to a supposed ally like you and are on completely different wavelengths, what hope is there for people like Coulter or Milo or Spencer? We can't even get through to you that it wasn't "debate" that took Milo down but a really incredible stroke of luck that he turned out to be a pedophile-sympathizer, which turned out to be a step too far. Not any debate took him down--just him turning out to think pedophilia isn't that bad.

Same with say O'Reilly. No amount of debate with him or anything took him off the air. It's only once advertisers pulled their ads once he turned out to have sexually harassed women (again, not for anything he said, or any amount of debate, or even just the fact that he's a women-harassing pile of garbage by itself got Fox to pull him, not even that was enough, but rather advertisers pulling their ads because of that fact is what got Fox to act) that made him get kicked. And even then he's very likely to wind up finding some gig elsewhere, taking his audience with him, and being just fine and things not being anything different at all.

And of course the same was true with the transgender bathroom bill in North Carolina. Was it "debate" or whatever that got the Republicans that supported that shit scared? No, it was the NCAA and other businesses and all the toooooootaly, super-evil-inherently-because-they're-billion-dollar-corporations-and-all-those-guys-are-inherently-evil-because-wall-street pulling their money from the state that got those motherfuckers to even somewhat consider changing their minds (and even there, even after all that, they still tried all manner of bullshit and hemming and hawing).

But despite your hundreds of posts on this site, despite all the debate you've done, we can't even get a supposed ally like you on your side and to understand this. If debating you is like trying to lift the world on our shoulders, then what hope is there for anything to be gained from debating people like Milo or Coulter? If just debating you, an ally, is like pulling blood from a stone on these issues, how can you even begin to attempt to argue in good faith that there's anything at all to be gained from debating people like this?

The fact that debating an ally like you is like pulling blood from a stone is the direct counter-point to every single thing you're saying here. That you don't see that and continue down this road really says it all and is better than any argument I could ever make myself, so thanks for that.

Pretty much. It's a headache to even have a conversation like allies, let alone individuals like Coulter.

 

[theignoramus]

But knowledge beats them, it always will.

Wrong. That may be true in isolated cases, with the general public becoming more enlightened in their racial outlook, but history shows the most potent, effective weapon against racism and bigotry has always been economic strong arming, the might of brute force or both.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I dunno Ann Coulter's pretty close to the top of my list of "bad human beings" but as far as I'm aware she doesn't have the same sketchy history of calling out specific students/harassment that Milo does which makes the sentiment the university is confronted with essentially "We don't want her to speak cause we're too afraid of violent backlash", which isn't really a sentiment I'm that comfortable in supporting. Now I don't know the circumstances surrounding her refusal to speak at a date only five days later (she claims she's unavailable), but I don't really object to her speaking at all.

Berkeley only refused her because of concerns of violence (as is what happened the two previous speaking engagements) so they gave her a different date saying they could get adequate security by then. She refuses this date saying she wants her original date and is crying that she is being denied her freedom of speech.

She's not but unforuntately no one actually pays attention to the actual events as they happened but are simply just listening to that horse faced waste of carbon cry about her freedoms and are defending her without any research to include the idiot Bill Maher.

 

[Lord Frieza]

I dunno Ann Coulter's pretty close to the top of my list of "bad human beings" but as far as I'm aware she doesn't have the same sketchy history of calling out specific students/harassment that Milo does which makes the sentiment the university is confronted with essentially "We don't want her to speak cause we're too afraid of violent backlash", which isn't really a sentiment I'm that comfortable in supporting. Now I don't know the circumstances surrounding her refusal to speak at a date only five days later (she claims she's unavailable), but I don't really object to her speaking at all.

Coulter has never done anything like Milo did in that regards, but she's got progressively more racist in her writings and rantings, and she has condoned acts of violence for the greater good as well. She's really not as bad as Spenser or Milo, if we're being frank, but she's still a toxic person who no one should be defending.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

"Unlikely" lol

Aren't they fucking, or were at some point

 

[jack_package_200]

Dude. Dude.

Think about how much you have posted on this site alone--just on NeoGAF, and just on the subject of politics. Think about how many hundreds of posts you have on these subjects. But yet despite all that, we haven't even been able to get through to someone like you. If we can't get through to a supposed ally like you and are on completely different wavelengths, what hope is there for people like Coulter or Milo or Spencer? We can't even get through to you that it wasn't "debate" that took Milo down but a really incredible stroke of luck that he turned out to be a pedophile-sympathizer, which turned out to be a step too far. Not any debate took him down--just him turning out to think pedophilia isn't that bad.

Same with say O'Reilly. No amount of debate with him or anything took him off the air. It's only once advertisers pulled their ads once he turned out to have sexually harassed women (again, not for anything he said, or any amount of debate, or even just the fact that he's a women-harassing pile of garbage by itself got Fox to pull him, not even that was enough, but rather advertisers pulling their ads because of that fact is what got Fox to act) that made him get kicked. And even then he's very likely to wind up finding some gig elsewhere, taking his audience with him, and being just fine and things not being anything different at all.

And of course the same was true with the transgender bathroom bill in North Carolina. Was it "debate" or whatever that got the Republicans that supported that shit scared? No, it was the NCAA and other businesses and all the toooooootaly, super-evil-inherently-because-they're-billion-dollar-corporations-and-all-those-guys-are-inherently-evil-because-wall-street pulling their money from the state that got those motherfuckers to even somewhat consider changing their minds (and even there, even after all that, they still tried all manner of bullshit and hemming and hawing).

But despite your hundreds of posts on this site, despite all the debate you've done, we can't even get a supposed ally like you on your side and to understand this. If debating you is like trying to lift the world on our shoulders, then what hope is there for anything to be gained from debating people like Milo or Coulter? If just debating you, an ally, is like pulling blood from a stone on these issues, how can you even begin to attempt to argue in good faith that there's anything at all to be gained from debating people like this?

The fact that debating an ally like you is like pulling blood from a stone is the direct counter-point to every single thing you're saying here. That you don't see that and continue down this road really says it all and is better than any argument I could ever make myself, so thanks for that.

Great post. It gets old having to argue with supposed allies.

 

[Frozenprince]

Oh hey, gay people are being exterminated in Chechnya.

Maybe we should talk to them about it and educate them on what they are doing is wrong. That's the ticket, if gay people just out themselves to advocate it will solve all the problems.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

"Unlikely" lol

Aren't they fucking, or were at some point

“I know, we don’t like Ann Coulter’s views,” he said, to audience laughter. “I like her as a person. I’ve never agreed with one thing she ever said.”

This is the state of their relationship, as Maher puts it. Weeeeeeeeeeird, right?

 

[MotionBlue]

Read up on Malcolm X and read Deacons for defense, negroes with guns, and several other literary sources that cover violent civil disobedience.

If you're from Canada that's even more telling you probably don't know a whole lot about it.

I own the movie, but not the books.

Canadian education spends a significant amount of time on US Civil Rights movements. Probably because Canada's history isn't as convoluted, or as influential. The teachers/professors I have had always framed MLK as a major turning point in history. Idealize him almost.

 

[FyreWulff]

so p much

 

[Foggy]

So it's a meaningless platitude to point out that this is statistically the safest, most peaceful period in human history? That humans are better educated, healthier and more progressive in their attitudes than at any point in our past, by every possible means that those things can be measured?

Do you realize how recently the majority disapproved of interracial marriage? Do you realize how recently discrimination was the law of the land? Holy shit people just have no context for what they're seeing.

The difference between then and now is that the radicals like Milo and Coulter used to be EVERYONE, their position used to be the default. Suggesting that minorities were equal human beings used to be the crazy, radical position that would get you banned or called a crank. The fact that we largely recognize them as dipshits spreading hate for cash is a sign of how far we've come.

You guys act like somebody just invented this thing called racism two years ago and it's spreading like a pandemic. Nothing about what they're doing is new, there's just an uptick in activity (and the size of their audience) due to globalization. But knowledge beats them, it always will.

If you wanted to pontificate you didn't have to quote me since this is barely a response to what I said. Get the fuck over yourself.

 

[Frozenprince]

I own the movie, but not the books.

Canadian education spends a significant amount of time on US Civil Rights movements. Probably because Canada's history isn't as convoluted, or as influential. The teachers/professors I have had always framed MLK as a major turning point in history. Idealize him almost.

You're being fed an idealized version of history that never existed, that's my point.

Malcolm X was just as influential as MLK (and to a lesser extent Bobby Kennedy). Non violent civil disobedience was simply one singular aspect of the civil rights movement.

 

[lightskintwin]

I just simply don't understand how so many people are still expecting that she has a right to a venue. It's a right to free speech - not right to free speech and venue, and paid gig.

EDIT: Ah I see. It's because some people on the Coulter side have decided to shift this argument away from what it's actually about in favor of an argument that is much more open for debate. "Should we allow bigots freedom of speech" THAT is a debatable thing, but it's also not the issue at hand so could we please get it out of this thread?

According to this USA Today article:

CAN UNIVERSITIES LEGALLY RESTRICT CAMPUS SPEAKERS?

In limited ways, yes, but mostly, no.

Schools have some latitude when it comes to whether to approve student groups' requests for guest speakers, according to the Newseum's First Amendment Center – they can establish regulations and can deny requests ”if they have reason to believe that the speaker will advocate violent rebellion against the government or immediate, destructive, and disruptive action against the host institution."

Otherwise, ”courts have held that when an audience brings someone to campus to speak, the school bears a constitutional responsibility not to interfere."

In Coulter's case, two student clubs invited her to campus. If she had been planning to come to Berkeley uninvited, the university could require her to apply for a permit and issue other restrictions — even on speech content — as long as those restrictions are reasonable and are applied fairly, explains the First Amendment Center.

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/

 

[ahoyhoy]

You funny how these folks only invite the right that says crazy shit? No one that actually talks policy or economics

It's like they acknowledge their ideas are hateful, backwards shit.

You can get plenty of conservative economic ideas in Economics 101.

Aren't any professors teaching backwards social policy and concept for a reason: it's anti intellectual shit.

 

[legacyzero]

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.

👏Slippery 👏Slope

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.

Milo is an all around asshole that had it coming. And it came. The details matter not.

Spencer is still active yes. But still being served knuckle sandwiches for free.

CONSEQUENCES. All of these fuckers have experienced consequences. We are ALL liable for the consequences. Jon Tron got his project cancelled, OReilly got cancelled, Milo got buried, Spencer's catching glittery right hooks.

That's all I'm saying. I will protect your right to bitch about their speech, as much as I'll protect their speech too. When speech becomes action, THEN, we riot. So far, WE struck first.

 

[Zeyphersan]

Dude. Dude.

Think about how much you have posted on this site alone--just on NeoGAF, and just on the subject of politics. Think about how many hundreds of posts you have on these subjects. But yet despite all that, we haven't even been able to get through to someone like you. If we can't get through to a supposed ally like you and are on completely different wavelengths, what hope is there for people like Coulter or Milo or Spencer? We can't even get through to you that it wasn't "debate" that took Milo down but a really incredible stroke of luck that he turned out to be a pedophile-sympathizer, which turned out to be a step too far. Not any debate took him down--just him turning out to think pedophilia isn't that bad.

Same with say O'Reilly. No amount of debate with him or anything took him off the air. It's only once advertisers pulled their ads once he turned out to have sexually harassed women (again, not for anything he said, or any amount of debate, or even just the fact that he's a women-harassing pile of garbage by itself got Fox to pull him, not even that was enough, but rather advertisers pulling their ads because of that fact is what got Fox to act) that made him get kicked. And even then he's very likely to wind up finding some gig elsewhere, taking his audience with him, and being just fine and things not being anything different at all.

And of course the same was true with the transgender bathroom bill in North Carolina. Was it "debate" or whatever that got the Republicans that supported that shit scared? No, it was the NCAA and other businesses and all the toooooootaly, super-evil-inherently-because-they're-billion-dollar-corporations-and-all-those-guys-are-inherently-evil-because-wall-street pulling their money from the state that got those motherfuckers to even somewhat consider changing their minds (and even there, even after all that, they still tried all manner of bullshit and hemming and hawing).

But despite your hundreds of posts on this site, despite all the debate you've done, we can't even get a supposed ally like you on your side and to understand this. If debating you is like trying to lift the world on our shoulders, then what hope is there for anything to be gained from debating people like Milo or Coulter? If just debating you, an ally, is like pulling blood from a stone on these issues, how can you even begin to attempt to argue in good faith that there's anything at all to be gained from debating people like this?

The fact that debating an ally like you is like pulling blood from a stone is the direct counter-point to every single thing you're saying here. That you don't see that and continue down this road really says it all and is better than any argument I could ever make myself, so thanks for that.

What a post. In a great way.

 

[Plumbob]

Lots of pontificating in this thread from the kind of people who love to use words like "pontificate."

If you're here wagging your finger at people over Ann Coulter's 1st Amendment rights, but you weren't screaming your head off when Trump tried to ban Muslims from entering the United States, we know your game.

 

[Angelus Errare]

so p much

As always.

The Nation of Islam and other Black "Radicals" and "Extremists" were necessary because it made MLK look moderate, otherwise MLK would've been "Radical" and "Extremist".

This.

 

[lightskintwin]

I own the movie, but not the books.

Canadian education spends a significant amount of time on US Civil Rights movements. Probably because Canada's history isn't as convoluted, or as influential. The teachers/professors I have had always framed MLK as a major turning point in history. Idealize him almost.

The Nation of Islam and other Black "Radicals" and "Extremists" were necessary because it made MLK look moderate, otherwise MLK would've been "Radical" and "Extremist". The worse they could label King was an "Agitator", but believe me they wanted to label him worse.

 

[sazzy]

Ridiculous thread title.

Thread reads like a continuation of this Onion headline:

Berkeley campus on lockdown after several copies of WSJ found on park benches