Her large conservative organization that been funding these type of speaker events nationally withdrew. I don’t know if the Berkeley College Republicans had much to say about it. (They claim to be the largest political group on campus. I don’t know if that’s likely and their Facebook doesn’t seem that big.)
Edit: Hit my monthly NYT limit, but I see Berkeley College Republicans join in the cancel later. It’s not like they were going to pay the speakers fee, insurance, venue, etc.
I don’t, and I doubt they’d be okay if someone came and broke their stuff. The only distinction is the criminal charge. It’s still violence.
I agree it’s calculated on her part. She’s a profiteer monetizing angry people. She either gets paid to speak or she gets press for not speaking. Works out fine for her. I don’t think choosing what to do based on whether it’s good for Coulter is a good idea at all though. The last thing Berkeley should do it make decisions either in favour of or in opposition to Coulter. Just do what makes sense for the university and forget Coulter.
Oh, nonsense.
I’m honestly not sure that people like that really constitute “across the aisle” from my positions and views. You keep asking us to be empathetic, and okay fair enough. I’ll be empathetic to them and treat them like fellow human beings - which they would have no interest in doing with me. But I do think that doing so means holding people accountable for what they say and do. And yes, sometimes, if you advocate for terrible things for other human beings, like their rights being stripped from them and spread lies about them, such as transgendered people committee many sexual assaults (they are the VICTIMS of assault, not the other way around), then yes, sometimes people are going to stand to you and they might be violent. But then again, as Kill the Jewels said, “RIOTS WORK.” Riots are often uprisings employed to get a people heard. The ability to get heard via non-violent means often depends on having a mass media willing to hear your message. Non-violent resistance is always preferred, but sometimes it falls of deaf hears. And there will always be some subset of people who will never listen to you. That demographic has grown over the years and think that racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-semitism, and transphobia are myths cooked up by the media and that they (often white, rich, christian, straight people) are the REAL victims. How do you deal with someone who is so unwilling to listen to others and to accept historical reality?
They have. Objectively. Advocating for beheading foreign leaders and forcibly converting people is in fact advocating for violence. How is it not? I’m fairly certain that I can find other examples of both of them advocating for actually violence, but why bother. They really aren’t worth our time, because neither argue in good faith. They are self-aggrandizing narcissists who really don’t give two shits about the world and the people in it. [quote=“wysinwyg, post:63, topic:99881”]
I think you mean “tenuous”.
[/quote]
Please don’t do that. It just makes you look like you’re talking down to me. Again.
In this case, correcting my language with out asking what I meant first.
That’s funny, that’s what @wysinwyg said to me! 
Thank you! Glad I’m not crazy!
You know, I distinctly remember hearing this exact complaint in the aftermath of Milo charade. Remind, what has that extra exposure earned him again?
Persons or organizations can also infringe on a person’s civil rights. There is even reasonable arguments that the state withdrawing protection of your rights constitutes an endorsement of the infringement.
This argument for shutting down unwanted speech through threats seems very short sighted to me. By setting this precedent, we are forgetting the inevitability of political change. Someday, it will be right wing yobs shutting down progressive speakers through threats and intimidation. Unless you are cool with that happening then, you should be at least concerned with this happening now.
Such as police! Something to keep in mind when in the Berkeley area these days.
I’m honestly not sure that people like that really constitute “across the aisle” from my positions and views.
I’ve listened very carefully to what the political right think and believe. That’s why I’m not one of them.
Attention and money, the same things Ann Coulter is chasing.
Code of Conduct:
Retail-grade sporting goods equipment only for purposes self-defense, and all weapons must be constructed of tape, cardboard & styrofoam…there will be a 30-minute pre-melee Costume Contest/Free Speech Exposition round, to be judged by the viewers at home…
The melee itself will be limited to 60 minutes, after which all parties which fail to disperse will be arrested, for 5150.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:56, topic:99881”]
I’m not saying they’re not shitty people – they are shitty people. That’s why I’m saying we shouldn’t cede the moral high ground to them.[/quote]
I do not understand this sentiment. Is the moral high ground a set of values, or the path taken to get there? Is it both? Can an irrational ideology that devalues life by inherit characteristics even step foot on this path? You are not engaging in good faith debate with Coulter and her ilk, why afford them appearance?
Banished from his own side.
In principle, I hate the idea of anyone being disinvited, discouraged from speaking, denied a platform, or otherwise turned away because of a threat of violence.
In the case of horrid shitbag Ann Coulter… Eh, I’m okay with it.
Racist or discriminatory speech shouldn’t be tolerated on government property. If you want to be a racist elseplace fine.
So both sides backed out of their original plans after things didn’t go their way. Berkeley is being called a free speech violator for caring about the safety of people. Ann Coulter gets some moral high ground for pulling out because she couldn’t finance her printing press?
zThe 20th century? meh
People are allowed to do so, in any of the various formats she employs. Just Google “Ann Coulter”, and there you go. There’s no law preventing Ann Coulter from talking about whatever she wants to talk about, which is what “Freedom of Speech” means. Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean that an organization has to give you a venue.
I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing, because I’d like to hear more about this harm. What harm is done, to whom? The way your argument is structured, I could say that if my local Catholic church refuses to allow NAMBLA to hold a lecture on the joys of their organization, or if the World Trade Center refuses to allow representatives of the Islamic State to speak about the glory of 9/11 on 9/11, that’s limiting their freedom of speech, preventing people from hearing their ideas, and causing harm because they’re shutting down someone they disagree with.
Am I understanding your argument correctly?
