It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

page: 33
86
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

You can post definitions all you like but we can all see you simply applying labels that you either don't understand or you're trying to make fit because they're ugliest labels possible. Nationalism is a defining trait of Fascism, now tell us how Antifa is nationalist.


Nationalism is also a trait of patriotism.

Call it what you want, fascism, terrorism, etc.; we should all be in agreement that threatening or using violence to silence speech is unacceptable.

The fact that some posters on here, in addition to many in media, academia, and politicians and others, are trying to place blame on the speakers is disgusting.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Because a 9000lb dogma is standing in the way making it difficult.

It doesn't help to tell them they support a rapist either. But, ya know.....


You're spoiling all the dogmatic fun Texan.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Well since ANTIfa is not confined to any one geographic location.

Berkeley.

Now Oregon.

Spread across the country.

Sounds like nationalism to be.

After all the FAKE LEFT has it in their heads they are a superior 'race' than someone else.
edit on 27-4-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Because a 9000lb dogma is standing in the way making it difficult.

It doesn't help to tell them they support a rapist either. But, ya know.....


If the shoe fits. . . . .



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


By the same token, that evil MLK and other civil rights leaders, all of that violence back then was their fault for not providing enough safety for people who wanted to hear there message.


I'm saying that Coulter understood the situation she was in, and regardless would rather see the place set on fire than renegotiate a safer venue at a better time

Do you think these situations are the same?

If you do, please explain your thinking

edit on 4/27/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

She is culpable because Berkeley told her that they couldn't provide adequate security for her at the specific date and place she wanted, they offered her an alternative but because the people that were going to pay her to speak rescinded, she declined to speak at all.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Oh come on!

Is anyone really going to argue at this point that Coulter isn't blatantly trying to cause MORE trouble by inserting herself into the current situation if she does???

No she is not "responsible" for what others do ... but she is responsible for what she does.


Who cares? Coulter's intentions, however you and other psychologists here wish to attribute them, are beside the point.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

People are blaming her for the potential violence.



Hell YEAH!

Her and Milo - - their intent is to offend and get a reaction.

Pretty damn simple.


So if people might be offended by a speaker, they should not be able to speak?
That's not what you're really saying, is it?


Don't twist it.

Her and Milo's intent is to OFFEND and get a REACTION.

It's not about someone sharing an ideology another might be offended by.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler


By the same token, that evil MLK and other civil rights leaders, all of that violence back then was their fault for not providing enough safety for people who wanted to hear there message.


I'm saying that Coulter understood the situation she was in, and regardless would rather see the place set on fire than renegotiate a safer venue at a better time

Do you think these situations are the same?

If you do, please explain your thinking


And if the university accepted the terms for one venue and then said it was unsafe at the last minute? This is what happens, btw.

It's how the university makes themselves look good in all of this. They tried ... really.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

They don't call for a violent reaction, though.

And that's sort of the sticking point: yes, they're provocateurs but you can react by engaging them in dialog. Nobody is forcing anybody to react physically, much less react violently.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

People are blaming her for the potential violence.



Hell YEAH!

Her and Milo - - their intent is to offend and get a reaction.

Pretty damn simple.


So if people might be offended by a speaker, they should not be able to speak?
That's not what you're really saying, is it?


Don't twist it.

Her and Milo's intent is to OFFEND and get a REACTION.

It's not about someone sharing an ideology another might be offended by.


Okay, help me out.
Her intent is to offend who and how?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Wait what ?

It's Coulters fault Berkeley students act like neanderthals ?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

I'm saying that Coulter understood the situation she was in, and regardless would rather see the place set on fire than renegotiate a safer venue at a better time

Do you think these situations are the same?

If you do, please explain your thinking





No two situations are the same.

But I guarantee you there were racists during the civil rights era that said the following;

"Why does that uppity MLK have to speak at these venues? He knows it will cause trouble. He is just rabble rousing. He could have spoke at a designated time and place that would have not offended the white people that are angry"

The difference is you liked what MLK had to say, and dislike what Coulter does.

I will defend anyone right to speak, even liberal speakers I dislike like the Antifa leaders or Al Sharpton.

I wish that you would do the same.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Annee

They don't call for a violent reaction, though.


Give me a break!



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I don't know for sure but I'd wager that Antifa (which is international by the way) doesn't believe in national borders which is pretty antithetical to Nationalism.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




But I guarantee you there were racists during the civil rights era that said the following;


I'll give you another.

Johnson.

The snip he's on record for.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee




Her and Milo's intent is to OFFEND and get a REACTION.


Again, who cares?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

No, that's totally on Antifa and the Conservative groups they are playing war with.

Coulter was offered a different date and location, she declined. THAT is on her.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



And if the university accepted the terms for one venue and then said it was unsafe at the last minute? This is what happens, btw.

It's how the university makes themselves look good in all of this. They tried ... really.

At the last minute, might not any of us have decided that this situation wasn't safe?

The threat of violence is outrageous - and unacceptable. Everyone (mostly) agrees with this

Berkley is in a situation where it can't win. Regardless, Ms. Coulter could have worked with all involved to make this happen in a way that might have avoided, or at the very least minimized the threat. But, she didn't

You would have - I would have. But, she didn't

She chose instead to insist that her 1st amendment rights were being violated - when they weren't



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Annee

They don't call for a violent reaction, though.


Give me a break!



Break you off a piece of my kit-kat bar?

No, I will not give you a break over the concept that nobody is forcing anybody to react with violence. At no point during his talk months ago did Milo say "hey go smash windows if you don't like what I'm saying." Like him or not, Milo will debate anybody at any time and has repeatedly attempted to do so, and people won't do it.

Because they'd rather just try to shut him down entirely.

So no, I will not give you a break or a free pass on blaming words for violence, when those words did not call for violence. This isn't a case of shouting "FIRE" in a theater.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join