Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

a reply to: DBCowboy

Berkeley is/was hosting the event.

They have done nothing to promote, protect free speech.

What did they do wrong?

a reply to: Gryphon66

What is your what is your point?!

OF course I'm making partisan distinction around liberal, Progressive, leftist ideology, and the forum of political action currently being pursued at Berkeley and around the country in different areas and institutions.
That's the whole purpose of this forum!
What I'm not doing is playing partisan politics. Clearly there needs to be made a distinction with the point in between where Marxist ideology, Saul Alinsky tactics, and far left groups who choose to Riot and incite violence to achieve their political means, and the difference in true liberalism. Which they are assuming the identity of representing, and getting play from their Democratic political leaders ( case oriented - not Pelosi and Sanders) message Peddlers as being a representative of that ideology.

So I simply asked you to disagree with any of these distinctions. By doing so include a rational description how you disagree with any of my distinctions made.
Because at this point your arguments are seeming a little like the spin zone. Respectfully.

P.S. By the way I have not self-identified as a right-wing individual... only as someone who disagrees with Marxism ideology and Saul Alinsky tested tactics being used to discredit any ideology.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

That's a lie and you know it.

www.washingtonpost.com...

No.

Berkeley promotes what speech they like.

The rest can just go #### themselves.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No.

Berkeley promotes what speech they like.

The rest can just go #### themselves.

So, how should they have handled this?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Again a lie.

This is the Antifa and Black Bloc doing, not Berkeley.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

No one is denying anyone the "right" to speak at Berkeley. As I've said in this thread before, self censorship isn't a violation of freedom of speech.

Sure it is. It's called the chilling effect

I understand what the chilling effect is, and that's not what is going on here. Reading further, the conservative group that invited her decided to cancel because they couldn't do it the exact way they wanted.

That didn't stop her from spinning it into something to outrage her followers. It's a game to pundits like her. And the people falling for it on both sides are being played.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

Again a lie.

This is the Antifa and Black Bloc doing, not Berkeley.

Black Bloc and Antifa are a part of Berkeley?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

Again a lie.

This is the Antifa and Black Bloc doing, not Berkeley.

What?

You want to blame opposing extremists?

Not those caught in the middle?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

Again a lie.

This is the Antifa and Black Bloc doing, not Berkeley.

Black Bloc and Antifa are a part of Berkeley?

*epic facepalm*

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: DBCowboy

Berkeley is/was hosting the event.

They have done nothing to promote, protect free speech.

What did they do wrong?

Very undemocratic behavior to say the least.

Ya know in a DEMOCRACY where TWO sides get a say in matters.

originally posted by: underwerks

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.

I felt like you were defending the ones who may or may not have forced her to cancel her event. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

The rest of what you said, I agree with for the most part.
I feel the main reason for her and others to speak at Berkeley, is not just for their exposure, it's to expose an attitude and hostility by the students and others who try and shut them down.
These people loose their minds when Milo, Coulter, McGinnis and even Shapiro come through.
For whatever reason, it seems to me that they do not want their truth or their ideals to be challenged and they will go to great lengths to stop it from happening.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Except this isn't a Free Speech issue.

a reply to: neo96

Very undemocratic behavior to say the least.

Ya know in a DEMOCRACY where TWO sides get a say in matters.

So, you're saying someone should get to vote on whether or not Missy Coulter gets to prattle her bigoted nonsense at a (one would assume) willing crowd?

Was this event bought and paid for?

Does somebody owe her a stage?

How should Berkley have handled this?

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Free Speech costs a buck o' five.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Except this isn't a Free Speech issue.

Exactly

a reply to: DBCowboy

Black Bloc are tactics we (anarchist/Antifa) use, it's not a "Group" and we have nothing to do with "Berkeley" as a campus

a reply to: underwerks

I understand what the chilling effect is, and that's not what is going on here. Reading further, the conservative group that invited her decided to cancel because they couldn't do it the exact way they wanted.

That didn't stop her from spinning it into something to outrage her followers. It's a game to pundits like her. And the people falling for it on both sides are being played.

Yes, Berkley and the Berkley police refused to defend a speaker from making a speech.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Yeah they OWE her a stage.

What Berkeley should do ?

Expel every last GD student, and faculty member,and Start Applying the Affirmative Action LAW in to political leanings across the board.

Promote constitutional LAW, and what Freedom of speech are.

Clean that house of institutionalized discrimination.

Clean it's curriculum and start actually teaching higher learning.

Could you just imagine if this was reversed and a liberal speaker was being silenced by an angry mob of conservatives? The tone would be dramatically different around here, that's for sure.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Wait...

From your OP...

because she had lost the backing of conservative groups that had initially sponsored her appearance.

The school said she could speak only at a later date and an earlier time of day, when there were likely to be fewer students on campus and less of a likelihood for violent outbreaks.

But somehow this is the "Left's" fault?

She only would speak at a time and day when there was a GREATER likelihood of violence?

And "Violence" at Berkeley Protests ...as a gazillion Youtubes prove...has been a bipartisan affair by the most generous of observers and mostly instigated by right wing nationalists if someone scopes through those videos objectively.

What a nonsense thread...Anne Coulter is a moron BTW, and that is a non-political opinion.