Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
You know it's a gross violation when Sanders, Warren, Mahr all come out against Berkeley.

But it does validate what many of us have been saying when defenders of suppression are here on ATS.

Your failure to understand that we can differentiate between violence (not supported) and protest (supported) does not make us supporters of suppression. You on the other hand seem all too eager to suppress protest which is also free speech.

Meanwhile I don't understand why the violence on both sides is just being allowed to happen, these two gaggles of morons are practically scheduling for participation and live streamers/viewers.

The new Colosseum.

/popcorn

And just a little dig at Ann Coulter... MLK marched continuously through a very hateful South, she can't walk through a crowd of kids trying to steal each others binkies?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Adios, Ann!

Stir up the pot in morning shows of retarded cable networks then, I'm sure they'll be happy to provide some save space filled with free speech time.

Nice ploy though, I see a few Drumpfs already thinking about buying your books out of sheer sympathy for this red flags of authority waving stance. That's a job well done plus it offers the usual devide & conquer crap to ignite a well known bunch of left-winger with. Heck... it might even result in more security on the streets, a tremendous help to breed this endlessly growing police state. Wonderful.

Plus the Beloved Leader in charge needs leverage to cut the funds for this breeding-ground of socialism. Carry on!

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I've asked neo a question so I'll ask again... why bring up BLM? Do you think they understand politics or even care about it?

Sure. BLM is a mostly left minded group mixed with racist tendencies including the exclusion of white people, even those supporting them from some of their events. They have demonstrated a hate for the police including calling for the murder of police which became a reality. In my personal opinion (which I believe is the same as the majority) BLM is more liberal and progressive than conservative. They support the same tactics (lying, violence, destruction of property) when it suits their goals. They accept the "victim" persona which is supported by other liberals which (in my opinion) is the biggest problem and barrier for black people and their communities. The black community has been exploited by the left for votes while no real help has ever been provided. Liberals seem to like the black communities position as victims and poor and wish to keep them there for the selfish reasons of the democrats and for votes. I would guess (yes...I have no facts) that if you polled all BLM members and supporters, 75+% would identify as democrats, liberals or progressives.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The thing is Coulter and Milo are both acts.

Both have said so.

Both have said their intent is to push buttons.

They are not generating a message to sudents: "Hey, Liberals - - this is what we think - - can you look at it from our point of view"?

They are instigators - - flat out. I don't call that Free Speech.

So?

So what!

Again, you are just showing yourself that you're okay with "free speech" as long as it meets conditions that are acceptable to you.

I do not consider what Milo and Coulter do by intention - - free speech.

Their intent is to instigate.

Then your interpretation is wrong.

But then again, it just shows you are not a defender of free speech.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I do agree that Ann Coulter may seem to not "sympathize" with the typical group/s of people claiming "victim" status perpetually...However, I don't quite understand all the hatred toward the woman. If one actually decides to listen to her, she is quite witty and does make many valid points while using valid stats/data/sources to back up her claims.

I don't agree with her on some things, but the hatred I'm seeing lately is from one side... You guessed it, lefties!!

At least she was brave enough to go on the Roasting of Rob Lowe, (That became the talk # about Anne Coulter instead show) and we all know what Hollywood libs like to do when they get together in their echo chamber in the name of "comedy".

Too bad for Anne. She took it like a champ, even though much of what was said had nothing to do with comedy and everything to do with HATE.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

No her point was that they intend to enrage people and get away with it.

IMO - - a speaker should have something to say - - a point of view.

At least something that's debatable and discussable.

That is not what Milo and Coulter intend.

a reply to: Kali74

I've never supported suppression of protest.

While many here are openly supporting suppression of free speech.

a reply to: Kali74

And just a little dig at Ann Coulter... MLK marched continuously through a very hateful South, she can't walk through a crowd of kids trying to steal each others binkies?

MLK was also assassinated.

True story.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The thing is Coulter and Milo are both acts.

Both have said so.

Both have said their intent is to push buttons.

They are not generating a message to sudents: "Hey, Liberals - - this is what we think - - can you look at it from our point of view"?

They are instigators - - flat out. I don't call that Free Speech.

So?

So what!

Again, you are just showing yourself that you're okay with "free speech" as long as it meets conditions that are acceptable to you.

I do not consider what Milo and Coulter do by intention - - free speech.

Their intent is to instigate.

Then your interpretation is wrong.

But then again, it just shows you are not a defender of free speech.

Apparently, not your version.

a reply to: Annee

Instigate what though?

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

That's your view. It is not my view. I don't think they understand politics. Many of them only care about violence, drugs and hand-outs. It's no wonder they are Democrats because the media always blare the news that Democrats support free stuff.

Here. Go nuke Berkeley.

Sobering, but it did make me feel better for a short while just before the implications of the real world hit.

a reply to: Annee

I don't care what they say.

I don't really care what YOU say.

But I will always defend your right and Coulters right to say it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The thing is Coulter and Milo are both acts.

Both have said so.

Both have said their intent is to push buttons.

They are not generating a message to sudents: "Hey, Liberals - - this is what we think - - can you look at it from our point of view"?

They are instigators - - flat out. I don't call that Free Speech.

So?

So what!

Again, you are just showing yourself that you're okay with "free speech" as long as it meets conditions that are acceptable to you.

I do not consider what Milo and Coulter do by intention - - free speech.

Their intent is to instigate.

So there are rules to free speech now? The intent to instigate is banned, but intent to silence other's is OK?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

See there you go again. "ONLY the left". Sighs.
Well I can see that you will not change your mind. Oh well.
There will always be extremists on both sides. That's a fact. Bipartisan quibbles will not change that fact.

If you truly believe that...then please point to one single group of right-leaning people who have rioted, destroyed property, assaulted dissenters, worn masks, blocked others from their Constitutional rights, etc. since Trump's election. I can immediately think of about 10 such incidents by the left.

Yes...there are good and bad on both sides. But the truth is...as far as I can determine...the left are far more likely to execute such actions.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: c2oden

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The thing is Coulter and Milo are both acts.

Both have said so.

Both have said their intent is to push buttons.

They are not generating a message to sudents: "Hey, Liberals - - this is what we think - - can you look at it from our point of view"?

They are instigators - - flat out. I don't call that Free Speech.

You do not understand free speech.

You do understand intent to instigate?

I understand it.
I don't understand why you think it's ok.
Intent to instigate is what the lunatic left is doing.
Right now.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The thing is Coulter and Milo are both acts.

Both have said so.

Both have said their intent is to push buttons.

They are not generating a message to sudents: "Hey, Liberals - - this is what we think - - can you look at it from our point of view"?

They are instigators - - flat out. I don't call that Free Speech.

So?

So what!

Again, you are just showing yourself that you're okay with "free speech" as long as it meets conditions that are acceptable to you.

I do not consider what Milo and Coulter do by intention - - free speech.

Their intent is to instigate.

Then your interpretation is wrong.

But then again, it just shows you are not a defender of free speech.

Apparently, not your version.

Well, let's see ... my version of free speech is where someone a group invites to a venue to speak gets to do so, and if you don't like what they say ... you don't attend rather than screaming and threatening violence both to the speaker and anyone who tries to attend.

originally posted by: Annee


Apparently, not your version.

There is no "version" of free speech.

a reply to: DBCowboy

How many is many?

a reply to: Annee

So is Stern. Its a "shock media" thing.

I think what you are ignoring is reasonable response. Threats of violence are not a reasonable response. A wave of threats big enough to concern faculty seems to imply a lack of rationality that is noteworthy.

Sure Coulter is a turd. Do you believe threats of violence are appropriate? Is their provocative "show" (which, essentially, is what it is....a show based on provocative political monologue) really worthy of that?