Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

a reply to: XAnarchistX

And look at the results of your disruption. Absolutely nil. I do not only ignore your misinformed attempts at mob violence and threat, but I fully oppose it, and will argue it right into the dustbin of history.

originally posted by: seagull
Amazing.

A group, or groups, invite someone to speak--a right protected by the Constitution. OK, so far...

Another group, or groups, threaten violence is that same person is allowed to speak... Why are any of you OK with this. Oh, it's Ann Coulter, squeaky voice and all, so it's OK. She's a provocateur, so it's OK to threaten violence.

No. No, it isn't.

UC Berkeley is an institute of higher learning, yet some of its students, by their behavior, seem to still be in the Jungle.

Oh, that's right, I keep forgetting... It's Ann Coulter, so it's OK.

Tell me, who wouldn't it be OK for?

I know.

It's crazy.

And it shows how far away people are from respecting free expression.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Argue away, it won't stop us.

I would like to point out, we are not running around punching random "Trump Supporters". I would also like to point out, these Neo-fascist groups were the ones signaling for violence the last two "Rallies"

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Argue away, it won't stop us.

I would like to point out, we are not running around punching random "Trump Supporters". I would also like to point out, these Neo-fascist groups were the ones signaling for violence the last two "Rallies"

I will.

But to be clear about who you are talking about, who is 'we'?

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Are you at Berkeley right now? I see there's some live streams on YouTube coming up from there. Not trying to get your personal info or anything but I mean...if you're there, it would be cool if you'd open up a "live thread" or something.

ETA - asking because you've said "we" more than once so...figured it was germane.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: underwerks

Do you know how many police are here

I have a good idea. I lived in Berkeley and then Richmond for a little while back around 2011.

I went to the Anarchist book fair two years in a row, and I still have a lot of friends that live there. I'm sure things have changed since then, but I think I still have a pretty good idea of what's going on from talking to the people I know that still live there.

a reply to: DBCowboy

She could still give her speech if she could schedule a bit around stuff. She wouldn't be paid for it (ie, "lost backing") so cancelled.

It says nothing about the violent assholes threatening her. Nor about her sucking raw eggs. Its just a statement o fact.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

Again, the YAF specifically said "violent agitators". That should factor into your argument at the very least.

I believe the YAF would label anyone protesting that disagrees with them as "violent agitators" if it serves their purpose at the moment.

They don't have the greatest track record, as a little bit of research on YAF shows.

a reply to: underwerks

Get one of your buddies to join ATS and start a thread for us

a reply to: Dragoon01

She didnt refuse to show. Her sponsors asked that she cancel the speech because THEY feared the violence.

But UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said later on Monday that “the event was never canceled, because it was never scheduled, because we were unable to identify a venue.” All suitable venues had previously been booked, he said.

Ann Coulter Refuses UC Berkeley's Attempt at Rescheduling Her Talk

Did the conservative groups hire her before they had worked out the details, or did Berkley actually refuse to let her speak? It looks like it might be heading to court. They're claiming Berkley didn't provide enough security - and so, that's now the same thing as not letting her speak? I guess we'll see what's what later on

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

Again, the YAF specifically said "violent agitators". That should factor into your argument at the very least.

I believe the YAF would label anyone protesting that disagrees with them as "violent agitators" if it serves their purpose at the moment.

They don't have the greatest track record, as a little bit of research on YAF shows.

The agenda of those who are manufacturing an agenda here is blatantly obvious.

It's the same old false dichotomy of "good and evil."

It's like listening to nursery stories.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Argue away, it won't stop us.

Ya know where the origin of the word fascist comes from ?

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2], characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce[3]

A rose by any other name ?

UC Berkely.

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

Go Berkeley!!!

May the sun never fade for a 1000 years under the glorious Reichsted UC Berkeley.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I disagree.

People are blaming her for the potential violence.

They might as well blame a woman for dressing sexy if she is raped.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The thought did cross my mind that Berkeley defenders were using the 'legitimate rape' argument.

So it's more in line with a greek tragedy than comedy.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Liberal is centrist.

a reply to: underwerks

I believe the YAF would label anyone protesting that disagrees with them as "violent agitators" if it serves their purpose at the moment.

Then why would why would the Berkley Chancellor say this:

"Our police department has made it clear that they have very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker, attendees and those who may wish to lawfully protest the event. "

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Do you want to keep avoiding the question?

He has to avoid it. He's got no clue what it is he's standing up for, he only knows who he's against

So, going to put you on the spot

Do you personally believe Coulter should not be allowed to speak? Is this is something you're willing to fight for?

Or are you only there to fight the fascists?

a reply to: DBCowboy

People are blaming her for the potential violence.

People are blaming her for the potential violence.

One of those people is me. Your rape analogy doesn't work here

Now, let's see if you can figure out why

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Because you side with the rapist.

a reply to: neo96

You're saying that Antifa are nationalistic?

Really?

Really, really?