Support NeoGAF

[Brandon F]

Talking isn't going to do anything, as we're seeing right now that violence gets people to notice. Sucks, but it's how the world works.

Also I'm not advocating Coulter to be murdered. She's a joke.

Violence will get people to notice and empathize against it, leading many further astray. Doesn't matter the subject, it's poor form and most will never and should never condone its use to win an argument. She doesn't deserve a soapbox and spreads foul beliefs, but rioting plays right into her hand and further builds her support.

It also can set a really dangerous precedent if the shoes were on the other foot.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Doesn't matter. That hate speech is protected by the first amendment.

Okay? And "separate but equal" was also a protected right

Doesn't mean it's okay or that coulter should be allowed to peddle her toxic bullshit.

 

[rjinaz]

Doesn't matter. That hate speech is protected by the first amendment.

Good thing nobody is trying to arrest her then.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

Violence will get people to notice and empathize against it, leading many further astray. Doesn't matter the subject, it's poor form and most will never and should never condone its use to win an argument. She doesn't deserve a soapbox and spreads foul beliefs, but rioting plays right into her hand and further builds her support.

It also can set a really dangerous precedent if the shoes were on the other foot.

I agree it sets a bad precedent, and it's why I argued we're fucked because the people in power will not play fair as they trample over you.

 

[wandering]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Hey hey free speech, ok?

"Throw a rock at her"

OMG HOW DARE YOU CALL FOR VIOLENCE

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I don't know I'm not the one who wants to throw rocks at people.

So if you don't know, then refrain from putting an actual "stoning" as his intent, how about that?

 

[Chumley]

So, you're actually suggesting he meant "stoning" which would mean throwing rocks at her until she's dead? He's advocating for that?

Newsflash, people can die from one stone being thrown at their head.

The distinction doesn't matter. If you're condoning violence, you're condoning the consequences that go with it.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Okay? And "separate but equal" was also a protected right

Doesn't mean it's okay or that coulter should be allowed to peddle her toxic bullshit.

She is allowed, whether you or I like it or not, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Good thing nobody is trying to arrest her then.

That's not how that works. Berkeley isn't an Internet forum, they're a public university and they don't get to pick and choose who is allowed to speak on their campus.

 

[Angelus Errare]

So Berkeley rescheduled her to May 2nd and she rejects the new date and demands the old date of April 27 and is at the same time screaming that her freedom of speech is being violated because they won't let her speak?

And people are defending this as if she's in the right?

I see.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

If a college educated student can't endure his views/beliefs from being challenged by a speaker, then we're worst off then I imagined and our collegiate education system has failed us.

Everyone is well aware of Ann Coulter's views. That's why people would be protesting. Which would be their right. She can also go there and spew her filth instead of whining about what is not actually a ban from speaking.

 

[benicillin]

She is allowed, whether you or I like it or not, and I don't see that changing any time soon.




That's not how that works. Berkeley isn't an Internet forum, they're a public university and they don't get to pick and choose who is allowed to speak on their campus.

lol yes they do what are you even talking about

 

[smokeandmirrors]

She is allowed, whether you or I like it or not, and I don't see that changing any time soon

Which is the problem.

 

[theCalamity]

If a college educated student can't endure his views/beliefs from being challenged by a speaker, then we're worst off then I imagined.

I would agree if this were about evolution or some other thing, but when it comes to bigotry and the like, I don't see that as someone challenging a view.

And lets not forget that many are already exposed to racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other intolerances from when they were children. If they want a reprieve from that for four years, I'm not going to admonish them for it.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

Newsflash, people can die from one stone being thrown at their head.

The distinction doesn't matter. If you're condoning violence, you're condoning the consequences that go with it.

People can also die from punches, and yet nobody is shedding tears for Richard Spencer.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

Not on campuses they don't. Nobody is entitled to be invited to speak.

What does this even mean? Entitled to an invitation? It's not like she called Berkeley and said she had a right for them to schedule her to speak.

 

[2Smashed4U]

So Berkeley rescheduled her to May 2nd and she rejects the new date and demands the old date of April 27 and is at the same time screaming that her freedom of speech is being violated because they won't let her speak?

And people are defending this as if she's in the right?

I see.

Uh no, not at all?

But saying she doesn't get the right to speak at all ever is just straight up incorrect.

 

[TTOOLL]

Not being ok with hate speech and bigotry is not a problem. Also she has no right to talk at a campus. Where is that in the constitution? Show me.

Why she has no right to? Doesn't anybody has?

And perhaps you could show me what part of the speech she didn't even get to make as bigotry or hate speech.

 

[Erevador]

So, you're actually suggesting he meant "stoning" which would mean throwing rocks at her until she's dead? He's advocating for that?

Newsflash, people can die from one stone being thrown at their head.

The distinction doesn't matter. If you're condoning violence, you're condoning the consequences that go with it.

Chumley is correct. And this kind of talk is particularly concerning in light of the fact that the self-proclaimed forces of "anti-fascism" have been engaging in exactly that kind of violence in recent weeks and months.

 

[lightskintwin]

Everyone is well aware of Ann Coulter's views. That's why people would be protesting. Which would be their right.

Of course. There shouldn't be a threat of violence with them protesting though.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

So Berkeley rescheduled her to May 2nd and she rejects the new date and demands the old date of April 27 and is at the same time screaming that her freedom of speech is being violated because they won't let her speak?

And people are defending this as if she's in the right?

I see.

Liberals get angry whenever someone erroneously reports that someone may be barred from speaking and spreading hate speech so you shouldn't be surprised.

 

[2Smashed4U]

lol yes they do what are you even talking about

No, no they do not. A public university cannot say "you aren't allowed to speak here" unless, like in this case, they have a reasonable expectation that violence will occur.

Otherwise yes, she is protected the right to freedom of speech to appear on campus and speak.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

At this point, as far right as the American right is today, what prominent conservative figure would GAF say IS allowed to speak in public places?

These people are in power now. We're not going to get it back by punching every scum of the earth in the face, it's not gonna happen, sorry. Someone has to engage them at some point.

That's not how this works.

Why do you keep pretending that the American public is going to have some sort of grand enlightenment moment about far right wing politics and the impact it has not just on minorities, but on white working class people?

The reason that people like Coulter, and Milo, and Spencer, and every trashbag who writes at Brietbart, and Trump, and Le Pen, and all these other shits are popular is because they have EMBRACED their rhetoric. An appeal to logic and humanity isn't going to bring them back, and nobody should keep advocating that we try.

They won't turn against them until the point where they realize they're being burned alive in the fire that they caused. In the meantime, those of us who can be, and are hurt by that rhetoric (and the few real allies that we have) are protecting ourselves by trying to minimize the message as much as possible and doing everything we can not to normalize them.

And finally, PEOPLE HAVE NOT STOPPED TRYING TO ENGAGE. You tend to not hear about it as much, because it's much more fun to get people whipped up into a frenzy about free speech rights that aren't actually being infringed on.

 

[benicillin]

Of course. There shouldn't be a threat of violence with them protesting though.

No one should be surprised that there are threats of violence against someone who peddles hate. Like that goes with the territory.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Newsflash, people can die from one stone being thrown at their head.

The distinction doesn't matter. If you're condoning violence, you're condoning the consequences that go with it.

Newsflash: Stoning means something pretty fucking specific. Do better when putting these words into someone's mouth.

 

[rjinaz]

Why she has no right to? Doesn't anybody has?

And perhaps you could show me what part of the speech she didn't even get to make as bigotry or hate speech.

You serious? She has decades of hate speech, on record, and her tone never changes. I don't need to prove the intention or the hate speech of Ann frakin Coulter.

 

[BeesEight]

It will never cease to amaze me how ardent Americans argue for the Freedom of Speech all the while having no idea what that actually entails.

Unless I'm mistaken and somehow the University of Berkeley is a branch of the government and haven't cancelled Ann Coulter's invitation but have instead issued a warrant for her arrest.

This idea that people are entitled to a platform is so bizarrely dumbfounding. Like... do adherents actually think that's how the world works? Like if I want to walk into a Catholic church and give an hour long diatribe about the virtues of Satanism during Sunday mass that the attendants are just beholden to letting me talk? The schools would be obliged to having some stranger wander into the classroom and give a lecture on the Flat Earth conspiracy and they have to simply let the madman ramble because anyone is free to just talk about whatever they want, wherever they want?

I mean... you're arguing this on Neogaf. You are basically tripping over grey names on this message board. Clearly people's indignation over free speech won't stop them from even using this very board! Those poor posters that broke the terms of service with whatever got them banned! Neogaf doesn't care about free speech!

Quick, someone call Bill Maher!

 

[rjinaz]

No, no they do not. A public university cannot say "you aren't allowed to speak here" unless, like in this case, they have a reasonable expectation that violence will occur.

Otherwise yes, she is protected the right to freedom of speech to appear on campus and speak.

So you're saying anybody that wants to speak at a university has that right because of free speech and it's a public university? The university is then indebted to make it happen. I can demand to speak there and they have to allow me? Can you back that up? Because it would seem like it would be up to the administration to decide the events there.

 

[fantomena]

Why the fuck are there talk here about wherever or not it's okay to throw a stone at someone?

 

[Brandon F]

I agree it sets a bad precedent, and it's why I argued we're fucked because the people in power will not play fair as they trample over you.

Don't disagree there. They want nothing more than to break us so they can point and discredit us when we eventually fumble. It's a vile strategy and one they keep pushing further and further as they continue to stretch how far decency and decorum can bend in their favor. It sucks and the world either burns in their wake, or intellgence, common sense, and decency make a comeback. And fast.

 

[Chumley]

People can also die from punches, and yet nobody is shedding tears for Richard Spencer.

Coulter isn't Spencer. She's a provocateur, he's an open Nazi talking about purifying the gene pool. If you're going to put every right wing loon like her in the same basket as Spencer, it'll just result in more of them popping up.

Also, if Spencer had died he'd have become a martyr. Violence isn't ok, full stop.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Of course. There shouldn't be a threat of violence with them protesting though.

it comes with the territory of being a blight on humanity. I'm not advocating it but there's not much to be done to stop it. Someone somewhere always gotta take it a step further. You better believe she understands this.

She's not actually worried about that though, and is instead upset Berkeley cancelled in the first place. She's more than welcome to show up at the later date.

 

[rjinaz]

Why the fuck are there talk here about wherever or not it's okay to throw a stone at someone?

It's not. Who knows why. It is wrong though. I guess people get heated when hate speech, against them usually, is something people advocate for, and it causes them to say things they shouldn't be saying.

 

[Frozenprince]

Purity tests. Align on 90% of important issues, but if that 10% doesn't fit they're not a liberal and they're not a friend.

Pragmatism and perspective are foreign words for a certain subset of young liberals. Endlessly infuriating that it persists even with all of the elections we continue to lose.

I'm almost thirty and have been hearing "just deal with it we have elections to win" my whole adult life so.

Nah.

 

[2Smashed4U]

It will never cease to amaze me how ardent Americans argue for the Freedom of Speech all the while having no idea what that actually entails.

Unless I'm mistaken and somehow the University of Berkeley is a branch of the government and haven't cancelled Ann Coulter's invitation but have instead issued a warrant for her arrest.

This idea that people are entitled to a platform is so bizarrely dumbfounding. Like... do adherents actually think that's how the world works? Like if I want to walk into a Catholic church and give an hour long diatribe about the virtues of Satanism during Sunday mass that the attendants are just beholden to letting me talk? The schools would be obliged to having some stranger wander into the classroom and give a lecture on the Flat Earth conspiracy and they have to simply let the madman ramble because anyone is free to just talk about whatever they want, wherever they want?

I mean... you're arguing this on Neogaf. You are basically tripping over grey names on this message board. Clearly people's indignation over free speech won't stop them from even using this very board! Those poor posters that broke the terms of service with whatever got them banned! Neogaf doesn't care about free speech!

Quick, someone call Bill Maher!

A Catholic Church isn't a publicly funded institution and protected by first amendment rights, so your analogy is immediately lost there.

So you're saying anybody that wants to speak at a university has that right because of free speech and it's a public university? The university is then indebted to make it happen. I can demand to speak there and they have to allow me? Can you back that up? Because it would seem like it would be up to the administration to decide the events there.

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

 

[TTOOLL]

Why the fuck are there talk here about wherever or not it's okay to throw a stone at someone?

Because people here don't like Ann Coulter so anything is ok, even throwing stones at her. But don't you dare say something against let's say, transgender bathrooms, that's hate speech and you're a bigot.

 

[theCalamity]

So you're saying anybody that wants to speak at a university has that right because of free speech and it's a public university? The university is then indebted to make it happen. I can demand to speak there and they have to allow me? Can you back that up? Because it would seem like it would be up to the administration to decide the events there.

They have to be invited by a student group, which pays for everything, and the university is not meant to interfere with it except in certain cases like potential violence and venue.

 

[johnsmith]

Coulter isn't Spencer. She's a provocateur, he's an open Nazi talking about purifying the gene pool. If you're going to put every right wing loon like her in the same basket as Spencer, it'll just result in more of them popping up.

Also, if Spencer had died he'd have become a martyr. Violence isn't ok, full stop.

Coulter is just as much of a Nazi as Spencer, she's constantly complaining about how America is becoming a less white country. She's a white supremacist, full stop.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

I said a rock. A small, not even going to break a window, rock.

 

[lightskintwin]

No one should be surprised that there are threats of violence against someone who peddles hate. Like that goes with the territory.

The opposite goes with that territory too. You act as if the Civil Rights movement and Black empowerment weren't face not only with threats of violence but actual violence from the State. However they were given platforms to speak. That's how the status quo gets challenged and change happens.

 

[Oersted]

Shouldn't we all be supporting the First Amendment though?

The University of California at Berkeley shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That one?

 

[2Smashed4U]

That's not how this works.

Why do you keep pretending that the American public is going to have some sort of grand enlightenment moment about far right wing politics and the impact it has not just on minorities, but on white working class people?

The reason that people like Coulter, and Milo, and Spencer, and every trashbag who writes at Brietbart, and Trump, and Le Pen, and all these other shits are popular is because they have EMBRACED their rhetoric. An appeal to logic and humanity isn't going to bring them back, and nobody should keep advocating that we try.

They won't turn against them until the point where they realize they're being burned alive in the fire that they caused. In the meantime, those of us who can be, and are hurt by that rhetoric (and the few real allies that we have) are protecting ourselves by trying to minimize the message as much as possible and doing everything we can not to normalize them.

And finally, PEOPLE HAVE NOT STOPPED TRYING TO ENGAGE. You tend to not hear about it as much, because it's much more fun to get people whipped up into a frenzy about free speech rights that aren't actually being infringed on.

And you're acting like every single person that consumes Breitbart or Coulter or voted Trump is a card carrying KKK member, rather than being say, an average dipshit Fox News viewers.

Which yeah, gonna have to challenge and convert a few of those people if we're ever going to beat the right again, and punching every hateful shithead isn't going to accomplish it.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Uh no, not at all?

But saying she doesn't get the right to speak at all ever is just straight up incorrect.

She can speak, and others can protest her speech.

 

[Socreges]

They have to be invited by a student group, which pays for everything, and the university is not meant to interfere with it except in certain cases like potential violence and venue.

And is that the case here?

 

[theCalamity]

I said a rock. A small, not even going to break a window, rock.

Just stop. Say you fucked up and then move on.

And is that the case here?

That's what Berkeley believed, yes.

 

[rjinaz]

A Catholic Church isn't a publicly funded institution and protected by first amendment rights, so your analogy is immediately lost there.



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

thank you. I don't agree with it, but if it is the law to allow guests invited by the student body of university to speak, then so be it. Students still have their right to protest though.

They have to be invited by a student group, which pays for everything, and the university is not meant to interfere with it except in certain cases like potential violence and venue.

Thank you too.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Because people here don't like Ann Coulter so anything is ok, even throwing stones at her. But don't you dare say something against let's say, transgender bathrooms, that's hate speech and you're a bigot.

Not saying throwing a rock is okay, but being a transphobe definitely makes you a bigot.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Coulter is just as much of a Nazi as Spencer, she's constantly complaining about how America is becoming a less white country. She's a white supremacist, full stop.

White supremacist =/= Nazi

 

[Chumley]

Coulter is just as much of a Nazi as Spencer, she's constantly complaining about how America is becoming a less white country. She's a white supremacist, full stop.

Every fucking old conservative right now is afraid of whites being equal with everyone else in America. If that's all it takes for you to call them Nazi's, I guess my fucking Jewish mother who's aunt survived Auschwitz is a Nazi.

 

[Lois_Lane]

Nope he was brought down by a libertarian from Canada mad he was speaking at CPAC

And said libertarian was a teenage girl.

Women doing what men won't.

 

[Socreges]

That's what Berkeley believed, yes.

Then...what's the issue?

(asking generally)