Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

I believe his complaint that Berkeley was being partisan.

After decades of institutionalized discrimination how could anyone even remotely defend whats been transpiring where the purported free speech movement began.

You're the Winger Whisperer now?

A complaint about partisanship is a complaint about partisanship. When you single out one "side" from the other and use catch phrases and buzzwords, you're being partisan.

Ah. purported free speech movement ... I bet you agreed when Reagan sent in the National Guard back in 69 didn't ya?

But this ... this is COMPLETELY different, right?

a reply to: DBCowboy

It is a victory for censorship, a victory for silence through fear and intimidation.


Good for you all. *applause*

Did someone finally manage to shut up that needy, squeaking, attention seeking shrew? Thank freaking god

Having said that - surely you don't think this is something the entirety of the left supports?

Nobody could be that simple

:-)

a reply to: Gryphon66

A complaint about partisanship is a complaint about partisanship. When you single out one "side" from the other and use catch phrases and buzzwords, you're being partisan.

Yeah partisan.

When one side singles out another side.

See Berkeley.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

A complaint about partisanship is a complaint about partisanship. When you single out one "side" from the other and use catch phrases and buzzwords, you're being partisan.

Yeah partisan.

When one side singles out another side.

See Berkeley.

Berkeley, where the administrators tried to insure the safety of their students who wouldn't cooperate, got mad and cancelled the event that Ms. Coulter was coming to?

Are you accusing the kids of shutting down free speech?

You seem confused.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Seriously ?

Where the FACULTY staff has been arrested for VIOLENCE.

Give it a rest.

Institutionalized discrimination.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Seriously ?

Where the FACULTY staff has been arrested for VIOLENCE.

Give it a rest.

Institutionalized discrimination.

BS. More BS from you.

So, you want to make the kids have Coulter regardless?

Sounds like you're the authoritarian here, Neo.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Bs eh ?

Intentionally ignoring Mr. Bikelock.

If I was authoritarian,

I'd be going around throwing things, and threatening violence, assaulting people.

Like Berkeley students.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Bs eh ?

Intentionally ignoring Mr. Bikelock.

LOL ...

One guy is "the staff and faculty"?

Yeah, BS is BS.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: underwerks

You can't really believe that, right?
It's not their safety they are worried about. It's the safety of the students.
If they did this to

"use that to promote their own brand while convincing their followers that fellow citizens are the enemy"

Then it would make more sense to give the speech and record the riot.

I feel like your spending all your energy trying to defend something that should not be defended, instead of rationally thinking about the situation.
I don't mean that disrespectfully, either.

Who am I defending? Conservatives in this thread automatically assume you're defending rioters that break and burn things when you disagree with them.

Who made the threat? When was it made? Is there any evidence of it? Or are we to blindly trust what the media tells us, as long as we agree with it?

Pundits like Coulter receive pages of speaking engagement invites every week. Am I to think that she just randomly chose the one from the small Berkeley conservative group to attend? That Milo just randomly chose Berkeley out of all the speaking invites he received?

The politics of Berkeley are well known, so if she feared for her (or the students) safety then why didn't she choose another conservative group somewhere else to speak to?

These are all questions in my mind. I think it would do well for people to remember that political pundits are a business, first and foremost, and they lend their appearance where it will get the most exposure. Or in this case and ones like it involving Berkeley, controversy.

Political pundits sell controversy, not astute political analysis.

Berkley has cancer...
It's called liberalism.

a reply to: neo96

Don't forget that the mayor of Berkley is a supporter of BAMN (By Any Means Necessary), which is violent leftist cult.
Berkley Mayor Publically Belongs to Violent Leftist Group

The sure do .



Such tolerance for intolerance.

originally posted by: JAY1980
Berkley has cancer...
It's called liberalism.

Thanks for making it clear that this is not about free speech concerns, it's about pure partisan BS.

Honesty is rare in this discussion.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: neo96

Don't forget that the mayor of Berkley is a supporter of BAMN (By Any Means Necessary), which is violent leftist cult.
Berkley Mayor Publically Belongs to Violent Leftist Group

For the life of I don't get why they deny that institutional discrimination runs rampant there.

They Ignore the hell out of, I guess because it's an inconvenient truth.

a reply to: neo96

So, which is it?

You want to shut down the students in 64 or 16 ... (Or both, more then likely).

Maybe you're the one that needs a safe space.

Again, the UC Berkeley administration has two equal concerns: free speech and student and public safety.

They compromised to try to insure both; the Conservative students wouldn't.

Because, as we all know, nothing about this is "free speech" its about pure partisan bickering and Coulter is one of the pros.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right!

Berkeley really has a 'concern' for safety.

Between the rioting, assault, and destruction of private property.

Maybe them Berkeley folks should start making their students attend anger management classes before graduating with honors in 'white privilege'.

a reply to: underwerks

With that logic, it was MLK's fault he got jailed in Birmingham. Why would he go to a racist city to speak about racism? He should have went somewhere else.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Fortunately, bickering, even partisan bickering, is still free speech. People are free to not attend, to not listen, to ignore her presence.

I think the greater onus is on the people who choose to pay attention to her, and use the very thought they may choose to do so as a predicate for threats of violence. What they are essentially admitting is their complete lack of self control as evidenced not only by their desire to convert words to violence, but also by the fact they seem unable to avoid the event to begin with.

They each have a choice. Like we all do. When i find out an asshole is going to be at a party, i tend to just not go to the party. Not go around threaten publicly to invoke violence against him. Its childish, trash behavior. No amount of wrong on Coulters part will make it less.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right!

Berkeley really has a 'concern' for safety.

Between the rioting, assault, and destruction of private property.

Maybe them Berkeley folks should start making their students attend anger management classes before graduating with honors in 'white privilege'.

So, you have an example of ONE faculty member at Berkeley acting a certain way and you want to condemn the university?

You just aren't real concerned with actual facts, are you?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

With that logic, it was MLK's fault he got jailed in Birmingham. Why would he go to a racist city to speak about racism? He should have went somewhere else.

If MLK had canceled the Birmingham march because of fear for his own safety, it would have been his fault. But he didn't.

That's the difference between someone with conviction, and people like Coulter and Milo who only serve to create controversy they can capitalize on.