Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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.

Partisan bickering is still free speech? Sure. I've said all along I think Coulter should speak if the kids want her to.

All violence used for political purposes is wrong. In support of stupidity like Coulter or against it.

My main issue here is that, as usual, the suggestion is made that those on "the left" are the only ones enacting violence, and that further Berkeley (the institution) is doing so because they want to try to keep everyone safe. That's their job.

They stated that they were attempting to balance both free speech and safety. The kids disagreed, as many college age kids do ... it was either the way they wanted it or not at all. They cancelled the event.

There is no "free speech" violation on Berkeley's part here Texan that I can see.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

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?

Just the oppressive ones, which turns out to be most of them.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You could just ask the host to move the party to change the date and time of the party so that there was less of a chance of that person being there though!

The onus shouldn't be on you to ignore somebody you don't care to listen to, it should be on everybody else to ensure you don't have to listen to them. Or at least have less of a likelihood of hearing them, even accidentally.

Wonder when Clinton and Obama will be invited????

I'll save you some money.....here's coulter in a nutshell...all liberals and their ideas suck.....free of charge, your welcome

a reply to: DBCowboy

Parents stop sending your kids to crapfest universities like this. I told my kids if they do any stupid behavior like this Im removing funding.

To the left: Keep on with your tactics and snowflake emotions, you will loose more elections. We are tired of it.

a reply to: underwerks

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.

But there is little difference than those in Birmingham, who would censor someone for their opinions, and those in Berkley who would deny the same right.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The actual facts here is what's gone at Berkeley has exactly ZERO constitutional protection.

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction

en.wikipedia.org...

What Berkeley has done is societal sanction.

Someone running around trying to make 'partisansnip' and issue is trying to sanction speech they don't like.

In both instances.

People don't have to like it.

People don't have to listen to it.

But what people have exactly zero rights to do.

IS threaten and try to stop it, by ANY means.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

I like the quote from psychologist Robyn Skinner:

"If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior."

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm starting to see more validity than I initially had for your no mud stance.

You can't tell me that you don't long for substance in your discussion. That you don't see how interacting with others should enrich you rather than simply being a valve to release whatever pressure is building internally from ignoring the spectrum of color that is being avoided.

Good conversation should be like a savory steak that you relish each bite of. It shouldn't be a bowl of bile that makes you physically ill.

Well slinging mud just to sling mud isn't fun or stimulating, i.e. "typical librul cuck" and never has been. That kind of stuff is just yawn material. I like being able to call a jerk a jerk though and it doesn't have to shut down debate it's just boxing with the gloves off.

Now though, maybe people are just too hurt and angry... I'm willing to think about not calling jerks, jerks. Dunno how willing to discipline myself to it I am, life is short. Maybe too short for my willingness to hold my tongue.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that in the instance of this story, and as it applies to the topic, its those damned pesky liberals screwing up again. That is the topical rant here...so no real surprise.

Ideally, when we see this kind of stuff we can honestly issue an opinion on it without trying to rationalize it against a spectrum of counter opinion. I know it won't happen soon...but its my goal for ATS in the long run.

a reply to: Kali74

You will have to decide what your goal is. Is it to vent, to throw out ideas to have them tried and tested (i do this a lot), is it to change opinion...

If you know why you are posting, it can make strategy easier. But i know for sure that if i want to change opinions or change dialogue, it has to be done from a higher road than the dialogue i wish to change.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that in the instance of this story, and as it applies to the topic, its those damned pesky liberals screwing up again. That is the topical rant here...so no real surprise.

Ideally, when we see this kind of stuff we can honestly issue an opinion on it without trying to rationalize it against a spectrum of counter opinion. I know it won't happen soon...but its my goal for ATS in the long run.

The rant is typical. And ATS is only a ... test field for issues.

I don't care about the "liberal/conservative" stuff at the end of the day. I like to think I care about truth.

If we were all arguing from that standpoint, I probably wouldn't say a lot: I detest politics.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You could just ask the host to move the party to change the date and time of the party so that there was less of a chance of that person being there though!

The onus shouldn't be on you to ignore somebody you don't care to listen to, it should be on everybody else to ensure you don't have to listen to them. Or at least have less of a likelihood of hearing them, even accidentally.

Im assuming this is sarcasm. Especially the part I bolded above. If not, we need to revisit the notion of "if you don't like a show, you can always change the channel" and look to install a nanny so the public doesn't get itself in too much of a lather.

a reply to: neo96

All Berkeley did was try to reschedule an event to keep students and attendees as safe as possible.

What the student groups did was tamp their foot like most special snowflakes and cry about it.

Which is merely bounding through the echo chamber here.

/shrug

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Since the notion that you bear no responsibility to make any effort to not go listen to people you don't want to listen to is inherently absurd, you would be correct in assuming it's a very, very sarcastic comment.

ETA - that bolded part is the focus of my point: if Coulter was being paraded from dorm room to dorm room to speak, that's one thing. But the very fact that one has to make a physical effort to go to a location and listen to her makes me ask what's so hard about just like...y'know...not making a physical effort to go see her?

a reply to: Gryphon66

What the student groups did was tamp their foot like most special snowflakes and cry about it.

Sure did.

Which is why Bill Maher called them effing crybabies

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

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?

Just the oppressive ones, which turns out to be most of them.

Nice hyperbole.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Lately it seems like I'm only posting to correct mis/disinformation.

Just thought I'd repeat this since it appears that some have forgotten or have just gotten bogged down in the minutia.


Who cares if it's Ann Coulter or not!

A group used threat of violence to deter/inhibit/prevent someone from speaking.

That is never ok.

No matter how much anyone tries to justify it.