• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYtimes: Ann Coulter says she will pull out of speech at Berkeley

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arkeband

Banned
So conservative groups lost their balls to continue sponsoring her, and it's liberals fault?

802.jpg
Click to expand...
 
J

Jawbreaker

Member
Bolivar687 said:
The students were threatening to physically harm her because they disagree with her opinion.
Click to expand...

I mean, I would back out if people were threatening to physically attack me, too. I despise the woman's views, but I can't mock her for backing down under those circumstances; however, It's totally possible that this was the reaction she was fishing for, in which case, whatever.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
I despise Ann Coulter and pretty much everything she stands for.

That said, this tactic is going to get used against BLM and marginalized groups so quickly that heads will spin. Also, this argument is basically the single greatest argument for those trying to keep the current justice system status quo (which heavily punishes poor people and PoC).

https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/

Yes, rights are important, and we must offer them generously. But surely we can agree that Nazis don't have rights?

Can't we?

I mean, surely we can agree that we don't have to extend rights to people who, given a chance, would take those rights from us. Surely we don't have to extend rights to people who are actively arguing to take our rights away. Surely we don't have to extend rights to people who disagree with, and attack, the fundamental precepts underlying those rights: that all people are created equal and endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Surely we don't have to extend rights to people who deny our humanity.

That's the argument — both viscerally appealing and idiotic — underlying some university students' fervor for censorship and even violence.
Click to expand...

Isn't it simple? Isn't it principled? Isn't it safe? They're not trying to silence all speech. They just don't want to allow speech that calls for their extermination, dangerous speech.

Right?

No.

First, the argument relies on a false premise: that we don't, or shouldn't, extend rights to people who wouldn't extend those rights to us. This is childish nonsense, and a common argument for tyranny. We criminal defense lawyers know it very well: why should this guy get a trial? He didn't give his victim a trial. Why should she be shown any mercy? She didn't show her victims mercy. Why does he get due process? He didn't give his victims due process. The argument is particularly popular since 9/11. You hear it a lot whenever anyone suggests that maybe people accused of being terrorists — or of being someone who might plausibly grow up to be a terrorist, or might take up terrorism as soon as this wedding is over — perhaps should be treated as having some sort of right not to be killed or tortured or indefinitely detained. Nonsense, is the response. They wouldn't give you any rights. The constitution isn't a suicide pact! It's also popular in matters of modern religious liberty. How can you argue that Muslims should have the freedom to worship here when Muslim countries deny Christians and Jews that right? In this manner, the student Left represented by the quotes below shares an ethos with the authoritarian and racist wings of the Right. A common taste for authoritarianism makes strange bedfellows.

In fact, we extend rights to everyone, regardless of whether they support those rights or not. That's the deal, it's the way rights work. Rights arise from our status as humans, not from our adherence to ideology. If they didn't, I could very plausibly say this: Pomona College, Wellesley College, and Berkeley should expel the students quoted above, because people actively advocating to limit free speech rights can't expect any free speech rights themselves.
Click to expand...

These students and their supporters argue that the "Nazi Exception" would only allow punishment of speech advocating actual violence against others. They're lying — they can't keep that story straight for a full paragraph. Ask them! Ask the students at Wellesley:

This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted. If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions. It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn. Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so.

It's not just speakers advocating genocide, it's "racist politicians." It's not just speakers advocating violence against groups, it's "speech that will lead to the harm of others."

Ask the students at Pomona:

The idea that the search for this truth involves entertaining Heather Mac Donald’s hate speech is illogical. If engaged, Heather Mac Donald would not be debating on mere difference of opinion, but the right of Black people to exist. Heather Mac Donald is a fascist, a white supremacist, a warhawk, a transphobe, a queerphobe, a classist, and ignorant of interlocking systems of domination that produce the lethal conditions under which oppressed peoples are forced to live. Why are you, and other persons in positions of power at these institutions, protecting a fascist and her hate speech and not students that are directly affected by her presence?

Heather MacDonald is a leading apologist for police violence, and I abhor her contributions to national discourse. But treating her as a genocide advocate demonstrates that these students can make anyone a genocide advocate and justify the suppression of anyone's speech. MacDonald's chief sin, in these students' view, is that she's a vigorous critic of the Black Lives Matter movement, its goals, its rhetoric, and its methods. I don't share many of her criticisms, but the notion that it is genocidal and outside acceptable discourse to criticize a protest movement is vile, un-American, imbecilic, and not to be taken seriously. These students' view that America is riddled with racism and injustice is quite arguable. But combined with their theory of permissible speech, it means that nearly anything can be identified as an instrument of genocide and therefore suppressed. I'm a Nazi. You're a Nazi. She's a Nazi. He's a Nazi. Wouldn't you like to be a Nazi too?
Click to expand...

The part that I think folks, especially students / those living in an area where 65+% of the population shares their ideological views

Third, these students are pursuing useful idiocy in the guise of safety. Exceptions to free speech don't get used to help the powerless. They get used to help the powerful. We see that in the case of blasphemy laws: imagined by some on the Left as a measure of respect for a multicultural society, actually primarily used to oppress religious and ethnic minorities and the powerless. We see it in colleges, where the same rhetoric used by these students is also used to silence their allies. We see it in some reactions to campus violence, openly thirsting for an opportunity to suppress speech. If these students think that speech exceptions will ultimately promote their concept of social justice, they're goddamned fools. Fools have rights too, but we're not obligated to cooperate with their foolishness.
Click to expand...
 
O

Omegasquash

Member
crooked spin said:
"Since Berkeley didn't cancel and make me a martyr I had to cancel myself and make myself the martyr I always intended to be in this situation."
Click to expand...

No Crooked Spin detected in this post.

I'm sure that once her appearance was cancelled by Berkeley, she seized on the opportunity to generate MORE PR for herself. And this is just her making sure it stays that way.

Queue the skinhead/Nazi fucks jumping on the wagon and blaming the left for suppressing freedom of speech.
 
Carl2291

Carl2291

Member
Bolivar687 said:
The students were threatening to physically harm her because they disagree with her opinion.
Click to expand...

Not just this, but rumors circling about the alt-right turning up in mass to fight antifa again like a couple weeks back. I doubt the sponsors want to be involved if it's going to knowingly cause a mass brawl.
 
S

Slayven

Member
Jawbreaker said:
I mean, I would back out if people were threatening to physically attack me, too. I despise the woman's views, but I can't mock her for backing down under those circumstances.
Click to expand...

But she didn't the university was going to let her talk, but the group that invited her said they would no longer sponsor it. She could still go and do it, but probably have to foot the bill
 
S

Slayven

Member
Cybit said:
I despise Ann Coulter and pretty much everything she stands for.

That said, this tactic is going to get used against BLM and marginalized groups so quickly that heads will spin. Also, this argument is basically the single greatest argument for those trying to keep the current justice system status quo (which heavily punishes poor people and PoC).

https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/







The part that I think folks, especially students / those living in an area where 65+% of the population shares their ideological views
Click to expand...

Birmingham.jpg

01WEB_FergusonWeapons081514_13674053_8col.jpg

140819213724-01-ferguson-0819-horizontal-gallery.jpg
 
L

Lord Frieza

Member
Bolivar687 said:
The students were threatening to physically harm her because they disagree with her opinion.
Click to expand...

Who was? No one came out and said they would physically harm her, but there were protests planned. The fear is that it would turn violent after the Milo thing at the same university.

Cybit said:
I despise Ann Coulter and pretty much everything she stands for.

That said, this tactic is going to get used against BLM and marginalized groups so quickly that heads will spin. Also, this argument is basically the single greatest argument for those trying to keep the current justice system status quo (which heavily punishes poor people and PoC).

https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/

The part that I think folks, especially students / those living in an area where 65+% of the population shares their ideological views
Click to expand...

While this is obviously not 100% a black and white thing, as few things are, letting radicals and extremists go unchallenged is not the answer. It's sad that so many of you think that it is.
 
S

Slayven

Member
Lord Frieza said:
Who was? No one came out and said they would physically harm her, but there were protests planned. The fear is that it would turn violent after the Milo thing at the same university.



While this is obviously not 100% a black and white thing, as few things are, letting radicals and extremists go unchallenged is not the answer. It's sad that so many of you think that it is.
Click to expand...

If marginalized people want to be heard, we got to hear out the folks that make them marginalized, makes no fucking sense. They going to spout the same bullshit they been spouting since day one of this country. "She said minorities are lazy, what is this new idea?". To the bushes with that bullshit
 
J

Jawbreaker

Member
Slayven said:
But she didn't the university was going to let her talk, but the group that invited her said they would no longer sponsor it. She could still go and do it, but probably have to foot the bill
Click to expand...

Ah, I misread. The sponsors backed out because of the potential for violence, so she's going to cancel because she doesn't want to foot the bill. I wonder if she would have gone through with it had her sponsors not gotten cold feet.
 
D

DerekOfTheDykes

Member
Sometimes I wish I had an inflatable squeaky mallet that would teach people what free speech was if they got boinked on the head with it.

Side note, I feel like it should be obvious that she pulled out herself because she needs the narrative that she was prevented from speaking. It should be blatantly obvious by now that these people don't actually want to speak, they just want to create controversy so that they can be victims. It's the MO of the alt-right at this point... and it works disgustingly well.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
Good day for those against hate speech. Sad day for free speech indeed. Now go back to your radio show, tv spots, and book writing where apparently nobody can hear you.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Lord Frieza said:
Who was? No one came out and said they would physically harm her, but there were protests planned. The fear is that it would turn violent after the Milo thing at the same university.

While this is obviously not 100% a black and white thing, as few things are, letting radicals and extremists go unchallenged is not the answer. It's sad that so many of you think that it is.
Click to expand...

Reminder that MLK was considered a "radical and extremist" during the Civil Rights era. So was Malcolm X. History has not shown people to be the consistently best judge of "radicals" and "extremists". And hell no you don't let them go unchallenged, but you don't make it OK to use the fear of violence to suppress speech. There's a giant gap between "counter-protest" and "threats of violence".

Otherwise how long will it take neo-nazis to start threatening BLM speakers at universities in order to get the university to shut it down? Or pro-palestine and pro-israel groups to start doing it to each other (as linked in the initial post)? The first time an anti-Trump rally has pro-Trump folks show up and violence breaks out, are campuses going to similarly freak out again and ban those protests on campus as well? History has shown that restriction of rights never ends up working out for those who are marginalized.

But then again, I suspect I'm in the minority as a lefty brown person who grew up in an area that wasn't liberal or diverse. So those protections on speech were the only things I had to rely on, because it was real easy to be demonized as not worthy of rights after 9/11 where I was.

Just my two cents. Do with it what you will. I know free speech isn't a popular concept in a place where 95% plus folks (including myself) agree 90+% ideologically. (See the occasional Republicans in NeoGAF OT thread that pops up). But as someone whose super liberal brown family still lives in that conservative area, this stuff will always matter to me.

EDIT: The reason this one matters to me it was that it was a public university. So this is specifically case of the government stepping in - not a private institution. That's why it's a much bigger free speech issue, since it is the government directly.
 
L

Lord Frieza

Member
Cybit said:
Reminder that MLK was considered a "radical and extremist" during the Civil Rights era. So was Malcolm X. History has not shown people to be the consistently best judge of "radicals" and "extremists". And hell no you don't let them go unchallenged, but you don't make it OK to use the fear of violence to suppress speech. There's a giant gap between "counter-protest" and "threats of violence".


Otherwise how long will it take neo-nazis to start threatening BLM speakers at universities in order to get the university to shut it down? Or pro-palestine and pro-israel groups to start doing it to each other (as linked in the initial post)? The first time an anti-Trump rally has pro-Trump folks show up and violence breaks out, are campuses going to similarly freak out again and ban those protests on campus as well? History has shown that restriction of rights never ends up working out for those who are marginalized.

But then again, I suspect I'm in the minority as a lefty brown person who grew up in an area that wasn't liberal or diverse. So those protections on speech were the only things I had to rely on, because it was real easy to be demonized as not worthy of rights after 9/11 where I was.

Just my two cents. Do with it what you will.
Click to expand...

Bruh, I think I know the difference between classifying MLK and a Neo-Nazi.
 
R

Reeks

Member
So tired of this shit. It has nothing to do with free speech. She still has free speech. It just means that people won't pay for her to speak. That's literally not free speech. Fucking Orwellian bullshit.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Lord Frieza said:
Bruh, I think I know the difference between classifying MLK and a Neo-Nazi.
Click to expand...

We on individual levels do. But based on the Red Scare, and 1960s America, or 2001 Americans and how they treated Arab-Americans, I ain't gonna trust "Americans" as a whole to consistently make that distinction on a regular basis.

Like everyone was all on board with Obama expanding executive power through EOs to do the right thing, and, hell, he did a lot of good on it. But when Trump got elected, all those mechanisms that Obama used to do good are being used by Trump to do bad. That's what I worry about. That, at some point, the people in power, or that popular culture and society, might do the wrong thing (like, say, Japanese internment, or separate but equal) because we got so used to good people being in power.

Fundamentally, I am much more hardcore about these types of rights because I want stuff that is durable enough to last through bigoted assholes like Trump and a GOP controlled Senate and House, and protect me when society decides it is my turn to be shit on. I can't rely on "good people" always being the ones in power in the local or national area.
 
L

Lord Frieza

Member
Cybit said:
We on individual levels do. But based on the Red Scare, and 1960s America, or 2001 Americans and Arab-Americans, I ain't gonna trust "Americans" as a whole to consistently make that distinction on a regular basis.

Like everyone was all on board with Obama expanding executive power through EOs to do the right thing, and, hell, he did a lot of good on it. But when Trump got elected, all those mechanisms that Obama used to do good are being used by Trump to do bad. That's what I worry about. That, at some point, the people in power, or that popular culture and society, might do the wrong thing (like, say, Japanese internment, or separate but equal) because we got so used to good people being in power.

Fundamentally, I am much more hardcore about these types of rights because I want stuff that is durable enough to last through bigoted assholes like Trump and a GOP controlled Senate and House, and protect me when society decides it is my turn to be shit on. I can't rely on "good people" always being the ones in power in the local or national area.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, my man, but you are really, really falling into the hardcorest of false equivalency, and with your Obama/Trump thing is just assuming that Trump wouldn't use EOs no matter what, too.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
looks like shutting down hate speech works!

system11 said:
You shouldn't need it, but unfortunately due to violent fascist groups like Antifa attacking free speech, you do.

Yeah - it's that simple.
Click to expand...

"Violent fascist groups like the Anti-Fascists", you should know words mean things and you brought into the shallow con.

So gullible.
 
S

Slayven

Member
Why is it every time i google Antifa it comes up with Daily Stormer, and it's siblings? Is it a dog whistle? New code like ((Globalists))?
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
Slayven said:
Why is it every time i google Antifa it comes up with Daily Stormer, and it's siblings? Is it a dog whistle? New code like ((Globalists))?
Click to expand...

they've been coaching their racist members to pretend to be Antifa by dressing up like them and causing violence/riots, so they need to keep their unified scapegoat.
 
H

Henry Jones Jr

Member
She still has freedom of speech. She could post what she was going to say online, or even stand on a street corner in Berkeley and deliver her speech.
 
L

LucidMomentum

Member
Henry Jones Jr said:
She still has freedom of speech. She could post what she was going to say online, or even stand on a street corner in Berkeley and deliver her speech.
Click to expand...

Heck, if she really believed it she could've still spoken on campus.

She just wasn't going to get paid for it.

Also, Fascists like Antifa is the best thing I've heard all day.

Also:

free_speech.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Bustle] Please Respect Mia Khalifa’s Rebrand
6 7 8 9 10
499
65K
Maiden Voyage replied
[SF Chronicle] San Francisco declares state of emergency over monkeypox
News Event
22
2K
Drew1440 replied
[WSJ] Company Documents Show Meta’s Flagship Metaverse Falling Short
News Business
38
3K
StreetsofBeige replied
Every “chronically online” conversation is the same [Vox]
Social Opinion Drama
47
4K
Lord Panda replied
UC Berkeley panel blames conservative students for left wing violence on campus
19
2K
Dontero replied
Top Bottom