Conservatives that dare to speak in liberal areas are agitators

a reply to: Kali74

I'm not talking a death threat by a fringe member, I'm talking mainstream support where liberals are shut out of venues they are invited to because of mass rioting threats and where entire college campuses have to close down because of mass anti left anti free speech support by a huge number of people.

I saw your link, apples to oranges. The right is not silencing that professor. She should be fired, and still have every opportunity to go speak at any college she's invited to. She spoke inappropriately on the job. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.

The left wants to stifle speech itself. Not a fringe member, mainstream left.

a reply to: Kali74

It's hard to see where or when social media took a turn into this weird place whereby people deny any responsibility and pin everything on the other side. It's common sense to accept that Right-wing and Left-wing have screwed up equally over the decades. Left and Right have always had incidences of stifling opinions and always will.

The recent phenomenon of rebranding one's own political skeletons as *theirs* is just crazy to behold. It's upside down and backwards all at the same time. The day will soon be here when a 30 page thread claims Nixon and Hoover were Lefties or LBJ was a Righty.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
...LBJ was a Righty.

Weeelllllllllllllllllllllllll, you might be able to make a case for that one.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Both sides are terrible, but it's clear the left is far deeper in systemic stifling of free speech.

Some day I expect the tables to turn, but the side with far more dangerous policies and ideas are the liberals.

In fact the only party I ever affiliated myself with was the Democrats.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You'll say that because you represent a specific political side. The other side is always worse than the one we identify with isn't it? It's just the way of things.

a reply to: intrepid

That's why I cherry-picked him

a reply to: Grambler

O.K., look, first of all, Berkley isn't a "Liberal" area; it's an extreme leftist area.
When is it "worthwhile" for a conservative speaker to make a speech? When they are in an area that hosts or attracts a plurality of ideas; where inquiring minds are likely to attend who are open to ideas they haven't been previously exposed too. Maybe someplace in the Midwest, or the Southeast. The "Coasts" aren't worthwile because it's simply pointless. You know, no one ever changed anyone's mind about anything once that mind is made up and ideologically cemented in to rigidity of thought. Minds are only infuenced or swaye when still in the inquiry mode. I'm not saying Ann Coulter types don't or shouldn't have the right to speak at Berkley, although I could, considering the polarization make a case that the right doesn't any longer apply at Berkley. I'm just saying, it's a pointless waste of time.

a reply to: Kandinsky

All of this has been going on long before social media was the platform for the world to play tit for tat on. Both sides have dark money though that tends to be the preferred method of 'conservatives' (Koch's et al), 'liberals' tend to go the protest/rally/organic route. Even the planned violent meet ups have been happening for years.

There are real differences between sides it's not all manufactured. There's serious key issues we'll never agree on but to keep playing (and I'm sure I'm not done, in the interest of fairness of course) my sides better than your side... I just hope it tones down soon.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Kandinsky

...

There are real differences between sides it's not all manufactured. There's serious key issues we'll never agree on but to keep playing (and I'm sure I'm not done, in the interest of fairness of course) my sides better than your side... I just hope it tones down soon.

Sure there are differences but there are areas of forced commonality where we should be able to reach agreements. It's the loudmouths on either end of the spectrum we need to marginalize. Media gives them way too much clout because they are good for ratings.

a reply to: Kandinsky

No I wouldn't because I don't. The only side I have ever represented is Democrat. I now despise both sides, just not equally.

a reply to: TonyS

Except you are wrong because some people want to hear her (them). It won't be empty seating.

a reply to: Kali74

There are real differences between sides it's not all manufactured. There's serious key issues we'll never agree on but to keep playing (and I'm sure I'm not done, in the interest of fairness of course) my sides better than your side... I just hope it tones down soon.

Of course there are real differences! Fundamental and possibly arising from a genetic level too. My post was more pitched towards the recent phenomenon of fringe elements seeking to disown their political histories.

Those 'violent meet-ups' have been happening over here since the late 70s that I know of. Anti-fascist Action (AFA) have appeared at just about every skinhead rally in the NW. Truth is, over here, those skinhead groups were well-known in the area and notoriously violent. Nobody ever had any sympathy for them and that included both sides of the political spectrum. We had National Front and Combat 18 who would go out looking for minorities to attack. A guy who was a mate from school joined C18 and took part in these 'hunts' when they'd drive cars/vans to certain areas and go hospitalise people. He eventually quit after meeting his (now) wife in the Philippines and couldn't be a supremacist with a Filipino wife and iirc four kids. Last time I spoke with him, he was a reformed man despite being a taxi driver lol.

I dropped in the anecdote because I'm referring to personal experience of AFA and NF/C18. The AFA (over here) have always been seen as the good guys.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Grambler

Here's my question. Why would a conservative like Ben Shapiro even want to speak at Berkley? It's tantamount to Rabbi Khan wanting to make a speech to a Nazi Party Meeting at Nurenberg. It is utterly pointless. He couldn't possibly change any minds and even if he did, no one would voice any support for fear of being hung as a traitor.

Total waste of time IMHO.

That's not accurate. I grew up in the Bay Area. I've spent a lot of time at Berkeley. Almost went to grad school there, and got in. My brother went there. Probably 5 of my best friends. There are plenty of real free thinkers, non sjws, and even conservatives in the area and at the school open to hearing him speak or listening to opposing viewpoints. Don't believe monolithic stereotypes.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

This is a good point.

I believe that just about everywhere in the country the majority of people would not be opposed to hearing viewpoints they disagree with.

I see no reason why Berkeley would be different.

So why should conservative speakers be forced to have half a million dollars in security, or be silenced by violent extremist.

There were plenty of people that did show up to hear Shapiro there, and many more that couldn't get in.

a reply to: Grambler

Just think how much better the world would be if conservatives weren't allowed to speak!

Ahhh, Shangri-La!

True, I think a lot of people if not most regardless of background do believe in free speech, and can handle peacefully opposing views. Milo or Ben should be able to speak there without near riots or threats. It saddens me that there are some on the left right now, fueled by the media and manipulative politics, acting as useful idiots and screaming down conservative speakers. This has opened before flipped around politically, such as during the red scare and during McCarthyism, and even under Bush Jr, when at least one professor lost his job for criticizing the Iraq War. But here we are now with the current situation, where now it's not commies but "white nationalists", nazis, and racists lurking everywhere. The most Orwellian part for me though was that it used to be conservatives talking about the Russians, now it's the establishment dems.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It's everywhere.

Hell, when I'm not finding amusing ways to insult Hillary Clinton, I am defending free expression form those on the left and the right.

They see expression as something that should be punished if it offends.

This is why I agree with people that say that some elements of current identity politics are actually illiberal in approach.