Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not a psychologist. However I do recognize the meaning of words and actions,which is the entire basis of your own argument.

You have no claim aside from "I think you're wrong."

Fair enough I think you're wrong most of the time.

originally posted by: Kali74
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date and place she wanted, they offered her an alternative but because the people that were going to pay her to speak rescinded, she declined to speak at all.

Right. So when the government told MLK and Malcolm X and other civil rights leaders that they couldn't speak at certain times and places, they too were then responsible for all of the violence by not capitulating to those authorities.

And by the way, I guess you all are letting actual violent right wing people know that violence does work; if they want to lessen the voice of liberals, all they have to do is beat innocents and riot, and then all they have to do is threaten to do it again to get liberal speakers in positions where they have to spend tons of money on security and must speak at times and places that won't draw a crowd.

When this happens, remember, your cheering helped lead to that.

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.

Luckily for Americans, offensive speech is protected. So we can keep making fun of the Commander in Cheetoh without fear of imprisonment.

originally posted by: Kali74
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.

Yeah it's called transnationalism.

That Islam is famous for.

That is wait for it ?

Nothing but a bunch of right wing neocons clinging to the guns and religion also known as Islamofascism spreading Jihad all over the globe.

But hey the devil is in the detail ain't it.

You can try to turn nationalism in to a dirty word.

Every other day of the week it's called patriotism.

Of course that really doesn't fly in the US of A since one our of mottos is E Pluribus Unum.

That everyone knows means.

Out of many comes one.

One nation.

One people.

One voice.

Until FASCISTS like Berkeley throw temper tantrums because they can't stand the thought of competing ideals.

a reply to: Kali74

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

So what? Berkley allowed threat and coercion to dictate who can speak, and where and when they can do it.

How was Coulter silenced when it was her decision to cancel the speech after her sponsors bailed on her?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Commander in Cheeto?

LOL I'd missed that one.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ketsuko


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

No I wouldn't have!!!

I will not let terrorists tell me where and when I can speak!

Open question...
WHO is Ann Coulter intending to intentionally offend...and HOW is she intentionally intending to offend them?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think you're wrong (again with the psychology), just pointing out also that you are making assertions without evidence, and imploring others to believe you:

"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??? "

originally posted by: introvert
How was Coulter silenced when it was her decision to cancel the speech after her sponsors bailed on her?

We've been asking that for pages.

The answer is "but people said things we don't like."

I don't think any of them have picked up on the irony yet.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think you're wrong (again with the psychology), just pointing out also that you are making assertions without evidence, and imploring others to believe you:

"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??? "

Sophistry.

You have a different opinion. Own that and move on.

a reply to: Grambler

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.

I have. If you were being honest - you would admit as much

Now that we've established how you argue, how about explaining how this situation is the same as Dr. King's

Did a university prevent him from speaking? Did a University fail to protect him? Did a University promise him something and then deny it to him at the last minute? Did a University try to find another venue at a better time, while simultaneously working with the police to try and diffuse a situation that was rapidly spiraling out of control?

a reply to: introvert

How was Coulter silenced when it was her decision to cancel the speech after her sponsors bailed on her?

Berkley allowed violence and coercion to dictate who can speak, and where and when they can do it.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If its a case of "see, we tried..." then Coulter should call their bluff, that's what I'd do.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sophistry.

You have a different opinion. Own that and move on.

It's a point of fact you do not know whether Anne coulter is "blatantly trying to cause MORE trouble by inserting herself into the current situation if she does". Sophistry.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

How was Coulter silenced when it was her decision to cancel the speech after her sponsors bailed on her?

Berkley allowed violence and coercion to dictate who can speak, and where and when they can do it.

In the OP it states that Berkely offered her a different date and time to speak.

a reply to: introvert

In the OP it states that Berkely offered her a different date and time to speak.

Indeed they did, but only because they capitulated to threat and coercion. Again, Berkley allowed violence and coercion to dictate who can speak, and where and when they can do it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

...and you don't know that any of the people who are allegedly threatening violence are going to do that either.

Yet, that has not kept you from arguing that they are.

Again the core hypocrisy of your arguments is revealed.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert
How was Coulter silenced when it was her decision to cancel the speech after her sponsors bailed on her?

We've been asking that for pages.

The answer is "but people said things we don't like."

I don't think any of them have picked up on the irony yet.

I can imagine that question has been asked many times.

The OP states that she was offered the chance to speak at Berkely, so it seems illogical to say she was silenced.