• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ann Coulter finds likely BFF/life partner in free-speech spat w/ Berkeley: Bill Maher

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rootbeer

Banned
I certainly don't like her or her opinions... but the disheartening part is with every speaker that is being challenged the stakes continue to rise... Milo just announced a 'free speech week' they will be organizing for later this year to take place at UC Berkeley.

People who live in Berkeley, like myself, have to continue dealing with the fallout of this shit...

The free speech rally vs. antifa clash just took place, now we have Coulter and Milo already stirring up more.
 
yeah I thought he's a fascist

nothing like a good Bill Maher thread in the morning to start the day

I'm so sick of ideological purity. Maybe you're joking here, but c'mon.

Maher is an anti-religious mainstream Democrat in US political standards. He's illiberal insofar as he'd want to ban religion from public life in America, but otherwise, he's a fairly liberal public persona.

He's not a goddam fascist. Not everybody you may disagree with a few times are fascists. The way fascist is thrown around today is like how neoconservative was thrown around 15 years ago. Everybody that somebody disagreed with on the internet was a neocon. It's like we've identified a few legitimate fascists we don't like or identified fascistic characteristics of some people, and so now every time we disagree with somebody about anything -- even when we probably agree on 95% of other issues with that person -- they're a fascist.

Of course, if you're just kidding then I don't mean this towards you. Just so tired of everybody not 100% ideologically pure with the far left being called a fascist. It's like the right referring to every non-right opponent as terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, or communists. The word loses meaning at some point.
 
Guess who runs/pays for the University of California? Do you need a hint?

And for the umpteenth time she can hang out in the quad and shout all she wants. They are under no obligation to give her a special stage, or anyone really. Freedom of speech is not the right to be hosted.

(Also they invited her back and she said no, so really it's on her at this point)
 

Giolon

Member
And for the umpteenth time she can hang out in the quad and shout all she wants. They are under no obligation to give her a special stage, or anyone really. Freedom of speech is not the right to be hosted.

(Also they invited her back and she said no, so really it's on her at this point)

I agree, know all of this, and have read the entire thread. I was pointing out to to the poster I quoted that Berkeley is a public college, and by that measure can't legally discriminate against a speaker based on their message save for a few cases (which this likely doesn't fall under, hence them backing off their initial ban). People seem to keep missing that point.

The threat of jail is not the only way that the government can impinge upon free speech. The Bush administration being allowed to corral protestors into special protest zones far away from any public eye or cameras is something that's always struck me as crazy that there wasn't more backlash over.
But then again, maybe there was and they just made sure no one saw it.
 

Violet_0

Banned
I'm so sick of ideological purity. Maybe you're joking here, but c'mon.

I was indeed joking

I'm not all that familiar with Ann Coulter and readily accept that she's probably a horrible woman, but the way people turned on Bill Maher is ridicules. I mean, you don't have to like him and, sure, he might be an asshole, but there are actually people here who genuinely believe he's another conservative hatemonger ala Alex Jones
 
And for the umpteenth time she can hang out in the quad and shout all she wants. They are under no obligation to give her a special stage, or anyone really. Freedom of speech is not the right to be hosted.

(Also they invited her back and she said no, so really it's on her at this point)
http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/

Posted a few more times because you seem to have trouble seeing it.

You're wrong with your "under no obligation" assessment. They're not obligated absolutely, but there are limits to what they can do to block speakers and limits to why they can decide to do that.
 
His views on this particular subject are no different than the ACLU's, and I don't think anyone would describe them as some conservative group. They're hated by conservatives.

The ACLU is a great civil rights group, but they've always been a double-edged in that regard. They arw thought of as liberal group but they've always played both sides.

Now, his views on LGBT issues are definitely weak, specifically when it comes to people who are transgender. From listening to him, I don't get the impression that he'd ever support laws against them LGBT community, but his stance isn't as rock solid as it should be. In part because when it comes to those that are transgender, he's still learning as his interview with Janet Mock shows. He's very ignorant on the subject. But I don't think it's in a malicious way, and certainly not in a right wing way.

No, he wouldn't support anti-LGBTQ laws, but apathy plays into the right's hand, even if indirectly. Apathy from supposed supporters does nothing for the cause one way or another
 
http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/

Posted a few more times because you seem to have trouble seeing it.

You're wrong with your "under no obligation" assessment. They're not obligated absolutely, but there are limits to what they can do to block speakers and limits to why they can decide to do that.

You joke but I actually did miss that article, so thanks for linking it three times. Useful information for context, I appreciate it
 

Tagg9

Member
I feel like the very act of complaining that people such as Ann Coulter or Milo will use the venue to spew hate speech shines a spotlight on them and inadvertently gives them a larger platform than they would have otherwise had. Let them have their free speech and see what good it does them. The protesting and threats of violence are only helping their cause because it makes it seem as if liberals are afraid of what they might say.
 

The Kree

Banned
I feel like the very act of complaining that people such as Ann Coulter or Milo will only use the venue to spew hate speech shines a spotlight on them and inadvertently gives them a larger platform than they would have otherwise had. Let them have their free speech and see what good it does them.

Sounds like you're arguing in favor of allowing radicalization to go unchallenged.
 

Rest

All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Is Bill Maher a liberal? The only thing that I know of his act is that he's a pot stirring shit slinging asshole, but he doesn't seem particularly liberal in the common modern sense. He's more like an anarcholibertarian.
 
I feel like the very act of complaining that people such as Ann Coulter or Milo will use the venue to spew hate speech shines a spotlight on them and inadvertently gives them a larger platform than they would have otherwise had. Let them have their free speech and see what good it does them. The protesting and threats of violence are only helping their cause because it makes it seem as if liberals are afraid of what they might say.

She's been saying horrible things for decades now, is a very public figure, and still enjoys great success, both with opposition and without. Protests aren't helping her do anything, she's not some unknown person just waiting for that breakout hit

She's had her free speech and the good it has done her is tons of money and recognition.
 

Kinsei

Banned
I feel like the very act of complaining that people such as Ann Coulter or Milo will use the venue to spew hate speech shines a spotlight on them and inadvertently gives them a larger platform than they would have otherwise had. Let them have their free speech and see what good it does them. The protesting and threats of violence are only helping their cause because it makes it seem as if liberals are afraid of what they might say.

Coulter is incredibly successful and Milo harassed a woman to the point where she dropped out of the university she was attending. Letting these people go unchallenged doesn't work.
 
Is Bill Maher a liberal? The only thing that I know of his act is that he's a pot stirring shit slinging asshole, but he doesn't seem particularly liberal in the common modern sense. He's more like an anarcholibertarian.

He self indentifies as a liberal, but I would probably put him more as a left-leaning moderate. He's not a conservstive or stealth Republician though. Anyone saying that is just dumb.

He generally is probably left on the common left issues: legalizing pot, black civil rights, pro-life, climate change. But he has a weak stance of LGBTQ rights, his rhetoric in regards to Islam is troubling if not right-wing, and he dies on hills for people like Ann and Milo. So, he leans left, but like a lot of moderates, he's generally pretty tone deaf to core cultural issues surrounding us.
 
I wouldn't call Maher a liberal? I'd probably call him a left-leaning moderate.



Okay, feel free to go around saying you're going to kill Trump and see what happens

There's not much that's "moderate" about Maher.

I always find it weird coming back to Neogaf and remembering everyone just uses American terminology wholesale. I think Europe has a much more exact way of talking about it.

Basically, "liberal" is the political tradition that probably starts at the Magna Carta, winds through Hamilton and Smith, then Mill, and is based on the idea of individualism, enumerated rights, limits on the power of government, etc. They're orthogonal to the standard left-right axis, for the most part. Libertarians occasionally call themselves "classical liberals" for this reason, attempting to claim the entire tradition for themselves, but most agree that the movement diverged into its right and left form sometime after Mill in the mid 1800s.

Left-liberals are Maher, the ACLU, and anyone that shares broadly leftist goals and prefer to promote them within a liberal framework of individual rights, constitutional protections, etc. They most often argue from a sort of third-person neutral arbiter position, where it is assumed that holding fast to stated principles and ideas will make it possible to hold the other side to those neutral principles.

The illiberal left are the no-platformers, the more strident elements of the social justice movement, and more or less anyone who thinks holding both sides to neutral principles are impossible. They will generally take your view that applying facially neutral principles to the other side is impossible and that victory is important enough to make promoting those principles a secondary concern. Or, as you put it, that the fact that we are in a culture war makes no-platforming a necessity.

So the ACLU can yell illiberal leftists for abandoning all principle, and the illiberal leftists can yell at the ACLU for having secret right sympathies or of not takign the threat seriously enough.

(right-liberals are generally libertarians and right-illiberals are, well, most conservatives in the US)

I haven't done a good enough job making those descriptions neutral, and perhaps the terminology itself is prejudicial, but I think you've got the idea. There's a pretty big schism in the American left along these lines now, and I think making such distinctions is important in determining where it's headed. It's pretty clear that the left liberals are losing ground, to the point of someone in this thread describing the ACLU as a mixed bag. Which side ultimately lays claim to represent the American left is one of the most important stories of this decade, in my opinion.
 
I mean, that definition is as good as any I guess. I generally consider a moderate someone who supports the low hanging fruit of the left or right, the less controversial stances, but is soft on hotter topics and wants to prioritize stability and status quo over an actual full shift to either left or right.

EDIT: And I described ACLU that way, but not in the context you are putting it in. It was in relation to this benefiting both left wing and right wing parties in court.
 
I will say this after posting, I don't really dislike Maher and the dogpiling on him gets pretty out there sometimes. He's really not that bad. The only time I felt really disgusted with him was when he Milo on and just let him run wild. That shit was gross. I don't know how Bill can't look at that shit and not be utterly embarassed. I heard he had anti-vaxxors on there at one point, but I wasn't watching then.
 

le.phat

Member
If you can't understand why some liberals don't really like Maher then I cant really help you.

There can be a total of 8 issues for example

  • UHC
  • Abortion
  • Equal Pay
  • Police Reform
  • Education
  • Money in Politics
  • Trans Rights
  • Environmental Issues

Just because someone agrees with you politically on 7 out of 8 of those issues doesn't mean that person earns your favor and respect on some sort of bastardized "majority rules" system. Sometimes those 8 issues carry different 'weights'. Agreeing with me on everything on that list, but holding Bills disgusting views on Trans Rights makes him as a whole a no-go for me.

Ill appreciate his vote for what would likely be my same candidate in an election, but I don't have to like him, watch his show, or tolerate his shit when it comes to that 8th issue. In Bills case, the specific topics that he leans towards the 'middle' and right on are so fucking abhorrent that many liberals are not fond of him.

Now numerically on the issues? Sure, Maher is certainly liberal on today's spectrum. In anger some people will claim otherwise but he's very clearly meeting that threshold today. Still doesn't mean he is owed favor though. This is especially the case when the spectrum for politics is in a eventual leftwards lurch anyway.

The way I see it, this whole discussion on whether Mayer is liberal or conservative, is what happens in a 2 party governmental machine. You're either for or against. No room, or labels for whatever falls in between. Totally hamstrings you guys in moving this discussion into a meaningful direction so often. Us politics discusions feel like a soccer match.
 

Chumley

Banned
The way I see it, this whole discussion on whether Mayer is liberal or conservative, is what happens in a 2 party governmental machine. You're either for or against. No room, or labels for whatever falls in between. Totally hamstrings you guys in moving this discussion into a meaningful direction so often. Us politics discusions feel like a soccer match.

The goal is to not even have the discussion and shut it down before attempting to come to an understanding as to why people would like Maher.

Like, I get why someone wouldn't want to watch him. He's smug as fuck and was painfully ignorant about Milo, and is pretty hard on Islam. That's a red line for some people. But just because of that red line, it doesn't mean he's not a liberal who doesn't fight for liberal values on his show. That's factually incorrect, and if someone else happens to like his show it doesn't make them an idiot or a traitor to liberals or a transphobe. It's part of the hyperbolic nature of so much internet discussion, it's either this or it's that. There's no inbetween or gray area, or room for accepting flaws. The flaws are so egregious that we're supposed to look at every word he's ever said as evil.
 

commedieu

Banned
Is Bill Maher a liberal? The only thing that I know of his act is that he's a pot stirring shit slinging asshole, but he doesn't seem particularly liberal in the common modern sense. He's more like an anarcholibertarian.

Google his comments on Muslims. And compare that to Christians. One is complete disdain. One is ribbing.
 

pa22word

Member
There's not much that's "moderate" about Maher.

I always find it weird coming back to Neogaf and remembering everyone just uses American terminology wholesale. I think Europe has a much more exact way of talking about it.

Basically, "liberal" is the political tradition that probably starts at the Magna Carta, winds through Hamilton and Smith, then Mill, and is based on the idea of individualism, enumerated rights, limits on the power of government, etc. They're orthogonal to the standard left-right axis, for the most part. Libertarians occasionally call themselves "classical liberals" for this reason, attempting to claim the entire tradition for themselves, but most agree that the movement diverged into its right and left form sometime after Mill in the mid 1800s.

Left-liberals are Maher, the ACLU, and anyone that shares broadly leftist goals and prefer to promote them within a liberal framework of individual rights, constitutional protections, etc. They most often argue from a sort of third-person neutral arbiter position, where it is assumed that holding fast to stated principles and ideas will make it possible to hold the other side to those neutral principles.

The illiberal left are the no-platformers, the more strident elements of the social justice movement, and more or less anyone who thinks holding both sides to neutral principles are impossible. They will generally take your view that applying facially neutral principles to the other side is impossible and that victory is important enough to make promoting those principles a secondary concern. Or, as you put it, that the fact that we are in a culture war makes no-platforming a necessity.

So the ACLU can yell illiberal leftists for abandoning all principle, and the illiberal leftists can yell at the ACLU for having secret right sympathies or of not takign the threat seriously enough.

(right-liberals are generally libertarians and right-illiberals are, well, most conservatives in the US)

I haven't done a good enough job making those descriptions neutral, and perhaps the terminology itself is prejudicial, but I think you've got the idea. There's a pretty big schism in the American left along these lines now, and I think making such distinctions is important in determining where it's headed. It's pretty clear that the left liberals are losing ground, to the point of someone in this thread describing the ACLU as a mixed bag. Which side ultimately lays claim to represent the American left is one of the most important stories of this decade, in my opinion.

The American terminology is actually more complicated than that. The realm of economics in general as a rule and some historians still use the traditional definition of liberal. It makes it sort of a pain in the ass when you're reading an economics book, a history book on something pre20th history, and gaf at the same time because >.< it easily starts running together and getting confusing
 

televator

Member
Self identified libs can also be assholes, bigots, and misogynists. Bill happens to be a combination of all while also being espacially large asshole.
 

ChouGoku

Member
Watching the episode right now and I agree with what he said, let her speak and we can protest and have talks later. The only thing I wonder is if these right wing speakers have genuine demand at the campuses. The only thing he didn't counter SE about is that the right are even bigger PC police than this, how bad do they cry whenever black people protest.
 
The goal is to not even have the discussion and shut it down before attempting to come to an understanding as to why people would like Maher.

Lol, who is shutting anyone down about liking Maher?

Like, I get why someone wouldn't want to watch him. He's smug as fuck and was painfully ignorant about Milo, and is pretty hard on Islam. That's a red line for some people. But just because of that red line, it doesn't mean he's not a liberal who doesn't fight for liberal values on his show. That's factually incorrect, and if someone else happens to like his show it doesn't make them an idiot or a traitor to liberals or a transphobe. It's part of the hyperbolic nature of so much internet discussion, it's either this or it's that. There's no inbetween or gray area, or room for accepting flaws. The flaws are so egregious that we're supposed to look at every word he's ever said as evil.

It depends on how far you want to stretch what a liberal is. I feel like you can lean left and not be a liberal.

And it's worth adding that the issue with Maher and Islam isn't that he's "tough" on Islam. It's the way he presents it in the context of ISIS. It's incredibly disingenous and culturally tone deaf to the current environment. Frankly, it's pretty right-wing, and he deserves any and all shit he gets for playing into it.
 

Arkage

Banned
I ran across this article today that is related to this debate of the escalating deplatforming war taking place on college campus. In a nutshell, Charles Murray is an intelligence scientist who made highly controversial claims about connections between genetics, race, and IQ in the 90s, and while scientifically speaking it remains a grey area, most on the left view his claims as irredeemably bigoted, especially those in the social justice sphere. Thus, no matter what topic he talks on now, he's deplatformed as a bigoted racist by leftist student groups.

But two social scientists wanted to see how Murray's lecture stacked up with fellow professors. They sent college professors a transcript of Murray's lecture, both with and without telling them who the author was, and asked them to rate whether the beliefs in the lecture were liberal, conservative or in the middle.

The Results said:
American college professors are overwhelmingly liberal. Still, the 57 professors who responded to our request gave Mr. Murray's talk an average score of 5.05, or ”middle of the road." Some professors said that they judged the speech to be liberal or left-leaning because it addressed issues like poverty and incarceration, or because it discussed social change in terms of economic forces rather than morality. Others suggested that they detected a hint of discontent with the fact that Donald Trump was elected president. No one raised concerns that the material was contentious, dangerous or otherwise worthy of censure.

So there seems to be a growing divide between what leftist college students deem worthy of deplatforming over, and what even liberal leaning professors think is controversial, let alone middle America. This exacerbates the right's argument that this is an attack on free speech, rather than the left's argument that it's a silencing of supposedly despicable views.
 

Kurdel

Banned
Is Bill Maher a liberal? The only thing that I know of his act is that he's a pot stirring shit slinging asshole, but he doesn't seem particularly liberal in the common modern sense. He's more like an anarcholibertarian.

Yep, that's Bill Maher alright, an anarcholibertaran who is for strong government action on climate change, wealth redistribution and universal healthcare.
 
I don't agree with anything she says but she does have a right to speak her mind. The people disturbing these speeches are only further stirring up the crazies.
 

entremet

Member
I think arguing if Bill Maher is a liberal is pointless he is. He's just a generally useless one.

His environmental advocacy is excellent. Far from useless.

He just doesn't fit into the nice box many modern liberals want all liberals to fit in these days. At lot these recent struggles have come because we've come from the Obama Administration. Liberals got spoiled and soft. Trumps punched us in the mouth and we're still with this useless infighting.

Liberals need to stop fighting. It's extremely ineffective politically and pragmatically.
 
As a liberal, I ask, when are we going to learn that shutting these people off from speaking isn't going to solve any problems? When you maginalize ANY group, you're going to get an equal and opposite reaction. This is why we have Trump.

We do what we do best, engage. She spews her dogshit and then we embarrass her in public. We make her feel so profoundly stupid that she freezes in her own skin and doesn't bother anymore. Are we so insecure that we cannot offer sensible and profound rebuttals that we just settle for brushing her under a rug?

All we are doing is giving her reason for her and her followers to press on.
 
As a liberal, I ask, when are we going to learn that shutting these people off from speaking isn't going to solve any problems? When you maginalize ANY group, you're going to get an equal and opposite reaction. This is why we have Trump.

We do what we do best, engage. She spews her dogshit and then we embarrass her in public. We make her feel so profoundly stupid that she freezes in her own skin and doesn't bother anymore.

All we are doing is giving her reason for her and her followers to press on.

Bolded is some idealistic fanticizing. She has no shame.
 

entremet

Member
As a liberal, I ask, when are we going to learn that shutting these people off from speaking isn't going to solve any problems? When you maginalize ANY group, you're going to get an equal and opposite reaction. This is why we have Trump.

We do what we do best, engage. She spews her dogshit and then we embarrass her in public. We make her feel so profoundly stupid that she freezes in her own skin and doesn't bother anymore.

All we are doing is giving her reason for her and her followers to press on.

Liberals are horrible at strategy. The GOP have mastered the political chess game, while liberals let themselves get played again and again. It's frustrating as a modern progressive.

Even these protests are just predicable reactions the College Republicans are trying illicit. It's so transparent, but these idiots can't see it.
 
Bolded is some idealistic fanticizing. She has no shame.

It's hard to quantify her limits. It's easier to quantify ours by saying shut the lights down. Like that's all we have to offer.

Hell, mathematically, maybe a rebuttal to her rings a fucking bell to her followers. And the message spreads. I know there is zero chance of that happening by not even trying.
 
I ran across this article today that is related to this debate of the escalating deplatforming war taking place on college campus. In a nutshell, Charles Murray is an intelligence scientist who made highly controversial claims about connections between genetics, race, and IQ in the 90s, and while scientifically speaking it remains a grey area, most on the left view his claims as irredeemably bigoted, especially those in the social justice sphere. Thus, no matter what topic he talks on now, he's deplatformed as a bigoted racist by leftist student groups.

But two social scientists wanted to see how Murray's lecture stacked up with fellow professors. They sent college professors a transcript of Murray's lecture, both with and without telling them who the author was, and asked them to rate whether the beliefs in the lecture were liberal, conservative or in the middle.



So there seems to be a growing divide between what leftist college students deem worthy of deplatforming over, and what even liberal leaning professors think is controversial, let alone middle America. This exacerbates the right's argument that this is an attack on free speech, rather than the left's argument that it's a silencing of supposedly despicable views.

This doesn't say what you think it does. It just means Murray knows how to present his material in a soft way during lectures. He's writing about glorified eugenics. Even most of those that defend his right to speak, such as Bill Maher who has defended him before, acknowledges this. In this article, some of the professors weren't even aware of the speaker, and most likely didn't read the material that was actually being talked about. Eugenics is debunked science born from racism and bigotry, this isn't, or shouldn't be, a controversial idea.
 

Tarydax

Banned
Bernie Sanders Condemns Threats Against Ann Coulter Speech At Berkeley

”To me, it's a sign of intellectual weakness."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58fb7006e4b00fa7de14bc3d?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Bernie Sanders is a fucking hypocrite. He doesn't get to complain about people booing or being rude after his own supporters' behavior in Nevada and at the DNC. If he thinks the people booing Ann Coulter are intellectually weak, what is he saying about his own supporters, who he could barely bring himself to condemn when they got loud and angry?
 

Kusagari

Member
Maher is liberal on basically every major issue in American politics. Even with his hatred for Islam and transphobic comments he's still opposed things like Trump's Muslim ban and supports LGBT rights in every facet you can think of.

The guy can be a dumbass and an asshole, but come the fuck on.
 
Maher is liberal on basically every major issue in American politics. Even with his hatred for Islam and transphobic comments he's still opposed things like Trump's Muslim ban and supports LGBT rights in every facet you can think of.

The guy can be a dumbass and an asshole, but come the fuck on.

Hmm
 

Chumley

Banned
Maher is liberal on basically every major issue in American politics. Even with his hatred for Islam and transphobic comments he's still opposed things like Trump's Muslim ban and supports LGBT rights in every facet you can think of.

The guy can be a dumbass and an asshole, but come the fuck on.

He doesn't hate Islam, he hates extremist Islam and constantly calls for moderate Muslims to stomp shit down like sharia law.

The idea that he hates all Muslims is an absurd misconception.
 
He doesn't hate Islam, he hates extremist Islam and constantly calls for moderate Muslims to stomp shit down like sharia law.

The idea that he hates all Muslims is an absurd misconception.

But it's an idea he, himself, plays into whether he means to or not. He insists, pretty much every time he talks about it, in connecting ISIS to Islam, when the majority of Muslims are trying to distance Islam from the creed of ISIS and other extremist ideologies. He's said more than once that 'Islam has an army of extremists, something no other religion has right now.' It's no wonder people call him an Islamophobe even if, ultimately, I don't think he is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom