• 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.

NYtimes: Ann Coulter says she will pull out of speech at Berkeley

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lord Frieza

Member
LucidMomentum said:
Heck, if she really believed it she could've still spoken on campus.

She just wasn't going to get paid for it.

Also, Fascists like Antifa is the best thing I've heard all day.

Also:

free_speech.png
Click to expand...

I feel like there's a lot of GAFers who need this shit printed and framed on their wall.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Lord Frieza said:
I'm sorry, my man, but you are really, really falling into the hardcorest of false equivalency, and with your Obama/Trump thing is just assuming that Trump wouldn't use EOs no matter what, too.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I'm using the false equivalency thing? Explain? (I might have this all wrong but not getting why I'm wrong, so genuine curiosity on the explanation) (EDIT: We can take it to PMs if you don't want to clutter up the thread)

I'm not saying what Obama did is bad at all - in fact, he was more or less forced into using EOs because Congress has done jack and shit, and he rightfully wanted to get good done. But precedence matters in government and legal rights; and when we opened that door, it would also open the door for assholes to abuse it. Maybe Trump ends up opening the door instead, maybe not. Maybe a liberal SCOTUS closes the doors for Trump. But once that line got breached, we got in trouble.

One of my genuine fears is that as we clump up into our own bubbles (I moved from rural IL to Seattle), we forget why free speech is important because we're not used to being in an area where our values are dominant. But if you're one of those folks who exist in an area (local) where you're not the dominant view (say, a liberal in rural IL) - those rights eroding has really dangerous consequences.

EDIT: Reminder - BERKELEY IS ACTUALLY THE GOVERNMENT SINCE IT IS A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, NOT AN INTERNET COMMUNITY AS REFERENCED IN XKCD. But that would require reading the strip and delinieating the difference between Government (which BERKELEY IS) and everything else. If this were at a private university XKCD would absolutely apply. But it is at a public university.
 
T

TemplaerDude

Member
Sad day for free speech?

Who is stopping her from saying anything?

Just because no one wants you there doesn't mean you can't say dumb shit.
 
L

Lord Frieza

Member
Cybit said:
I'm not sure how I'm using the false equivalency thing? Explain? (I might have this all wrong but not getting why I'm wrong, so genuine curiosity on the explanation)
Click to expand...

Because comparing the labeling of MLK as an extremist by the right to labeling actual Neo-Nazis and eugenic peddlers as extremists is not the same thing. At. All.

I'm not saying what Obama did is bad at all - in fact, he was more or less forced into using EOs because Congress has done jack and shit, and he rightfully wanted to get good done. But precedence matters in government and legal rights; and when we opened that door, it would also open the door for assholes to abuse it. Maybe Trump ends up opening the door instead, maybe not. Maybe a liberal SCOTUS closes the doors for Trump. But once that line got breached, we got in trouble.
Click to expand...

But this is all speculation and assumption. We really don't know if it did or not, you're just assuming.

One of my genuine fears is that as we clump up into our own bubbles (I moved from rural IL to Seattle), we forget why free speech is important because we're not used to being in an area where our values are dominant. But if you're one of those folks who exist in an area (local) where you're not the dominant view (say, a liberal in rural IL) - those rights eroding has really dangerous consequences.
Click to expand...

But again, letting extremist views go unchallenged is not the answer. I'm sorry, this isn't really about bubbles. And you know what also has really dangerous consequences? Legitimatizing extremist views and letting them go unchecked.
 
L

Lord Frieza

Member
Cybit said:
EDIT: Reminder - BERKELEY IS ACTUALLY THE GOVERNMENT SINCE IT IS A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, NOT AN INTERNET COMMUNITY AS REFERENCED IN XKCD. But that would require reading the strip and delinieating the difference between Government (which BERKELEY IS) and everything else. If this were at a private university XKCD would absolutely apply. But it is at a public university.
Click to expand...

And none of those rights were stripped. And, despite being a public university, you are not guaranteed a platform, as has been detailed multiple times throughout these threads. They can't stop you from coming on campus and saying whatever, so Coulter is free to go on the sidewalk and spew her bullshit.

But also, as the article states, she wasn't denied anyway. Her time was simply moved, and then her sponsers pulled support, and she left. You're falling into her nonsense of being censored when she wasn't.
 
S

Slayven

Member
Cybit said:
EDIT: Reminder - BERKELEY IS ACTUALLY THE GOVERNMENT SINCE IT IS A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, NOT AN INTERNET COMMUNITY AS REFERENCED IN XKCD. But that would require reading the strip and delinieating the difference between Government (which BERKELEY IS) and everything else. If this were at a private university XKCD would absolutely apply. But it is at a public university.
Click to expand...

But Berkley didn't cancel, she did
 
B

Buckle

Member
LucidMomentum said:
Heck, if she really believed it she could've still spoken on campus.

She just wasn't going to get paid for it.

Also, Fascists like Antifa is the best thing I've heard all day.

Also:

free_speech.png
Click to expand...
Goddamn it is depressing that this comic has to be posted as much as it has been..
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Lord Frieza said:
Because comparing the labeling of MLK as an extremist by the right to labeling actual Neo-Nazis and eugenic peddlers as extremists is not the same thing. At. All.
Click to expand...

Ok, I get that, and I think that's just me failing at separating personal views versus American legal views - my bad.

I guess I'm trying to explain the difference between how society (with 50 years of hindsight, mind you) sees them and how the law sees them. In the eyes of the law when it comes to rights, all people are (theoretically) equal. I don't see them as equal on a personal level, but the law does, and dumbass racist 1960s American government saw civil rights leaders as dangerous enough extremists that the FBI was sending letters trying to convince them to commit suicide FFS. So, as goddamn despicable as Coulter is, I think it is a legitimate worry that, at some point, "enlightened American government / people" will end up screwing over people trying to do good because we were being dumbasses. See below

Second, the "Nazi Exception" is not safe or principled because it's applied by humans, and humans are ridiculous and awful. Look, we already have exceptions to the First Amendment for dangerous speech: the doctrine of true threats (which allows punishing threats meant to cause fear and objectively reasonably causing fear) and incitement (which allows punishing speech aimed at provoking imminent lawless action). Those exceptions are narrow and well-defined and zealously monitored. There's a good reason for that: if you create a free speech exception, someone will always try to stretch it all to hell.
Click to expand...

I mean, imagine the Trump folks being the ones who decide what is "good" or "bad".

Lord Frieza said:
But this is all speculation and assumption. We really don't know if it did or not, you're just assuming.
Click to expand...

We do know that we have all of American history to show the concept of precedent and breaking precedent, though.


Lord Frieza said:
But again, letting extremist views go unchallenged is not the answer. I'm sorry, this isn't really about bubbles. And you know what also has really dangerous consequences? Legitimatizing extremist views and letting them go unchecked.
Click to expand...

Showing up with a giant ass peaceful counter protest to remind America that this lady is a goddamn lunatic and isn't representative of America or good people is a fantastic way to check and challenge those views. I think there is a giant gap between "letting go unchallenged" and "threatening violence if it happens at all".

I guess my question is, do people believe that the only way to properly challenge extremist views is to do whatever it takes to make sure they are not given venue to speak their bullshit?

Anyway, LF, if you want to keep discussing I'm happy to take it to PMs. :)

EDIT:
Lord Frieza said:
And none of those rights were stripped. And, despite being a public university, you are not guaranteed a platform, as has been detailed multiple times throughout these threads. They can't stop you from coming on campus and saying whatever, so Coulter is free to go on the sidewalk and spew her bullshit.

But also, as the article states, she wasn't denied anyway. Her time was simply moved, and then her sponsers pulled support, and she left. You're falling into her nonsense of being censored when she wasn't.
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm leery of that line of thinking, because they could say "well you can speak in this little corner at this time and etc etc" and functionally squash it. That's a dangerous loophole to try to use, because it is a functional suppression if not a technical suppression.

EDIT 2:

Slayven said:
But Berkley didn't cancel, she did
Click to expand...

I thought it was over the groups pulling out over safety concerns - hence the violence thing

Armaros said:
And it was because of money. She would have had to pay for everything instead of her inviters.
Click to expand...

The NYT article doesn't say anything about that - but if that's the case, then fuck her, it's just her being a pain in the ass and making everyone look like fools. I took "sponsorship" as "in order to be invited to speak at a college, you generally have to have a student group sponsor you to come, otherwise you have no university support." If sponsors at Berkeley mean "I ain't getting paid"; then she managed to turn it from a free speech issue into a "getting paid" issue, and screw her.
 
G

Got

Banned
LucidMomentum said:
Heck, if she really believed it she could've still spoken on campus.

She just wasn't going to get paid for it.

Also, Fascists like Antifa is the best thing I've heard all day.

Also:

free_speech.png
Click to expand...

This but watch how many in here trip up over themselves trying to say free speech is something else.
 
L

Lord Frieza

Member
Cybit said:
Ok, I get that, and I think that's just me failing at separating personal views versus American legal views - my bad.

I guess I'm trying to explain the difference between how society (with 50 years of hindsight, mind you) sees them and how the law sees them. In the eyes of the law when it comes to rights, all people are (theoretically) equal. I don't see them as equal on a personal level, but the law does, and dumbass racist 1960s American government saw civil rights leaders as dangerous enough extremists that the FBI was sending letters trying to convince them to commit suicide FFS. So, as goddamn despicable as Coulter is, I think it is a legitimate worry that, at some point, "enlightened American government / people" will end up screwing over people trying to do good because we were being dumbasses. See below

I mean, imagine the Trump folks being the ones who decide what is "good" or "bad".
Click to expand...

I mean, it doesn't matter what Trump folks say, Neo-Nazis are bad. MLK was not. We have the moral high ground here, I promise

Showing up with a giant ass peaceful counter protest to remind America that this lady is a goddamn lunatic and isn't representative of America or good people is a fantastic way to check and challenge those views. I think there is a giant gap between "letting go unchallenged" and "threatening violence if it happens at all".

I guess my question is, do people believe that the only way to properly challenge extremist views is to do whatever it takes to make sure they are not given venue to speak their bullshit?
Click to expand...

There were no actual threats of violence, as others said before. Protests were planned, and there was fear that they would become violent because of a previous incident where it did, and there was apparently talks of Pro-Trump/Coulter people coming in to incite violence as well, though I don't know much about this.

Eh, I'm leery of that line of thinking, because they could say "well you can speak in this little corner at this time and etc etc" and functionally squash it. That's a dangerous loophole to try to use, because it is a functional suppression if not a technical suppression.
Click to expand...

Not all views are worth hearing and worth giving a platform, too. Racism is one of them. I mean, yeah, you're correct, it can and has been used for the wrong reasons, but that's when you have to be strong in your conviction that saying 'Equal right for everyone' is right, and saying, 'Maybe the genocide of black people wouldn't be that bad' isn't.

I thought it was over the groups pulling out over safety concerns - hence the violence thing
Click to expand...

No, as stated, she pulled out herself. They rescheduled her time is all, she chose herself to leave
 
L

LucidMomentum

Member
Got said:
This but watch how many in here trip up over themselves trying to say free speech is something else.
Click to expand...

We already got one using the PUBLIC UNIVERSITY trap card :)

Also to everyone using the "why not just peacefully protest it?" line:

Martin Luther King did that. Look where it got him. Look how people treat minorities nowadays.

Apparently there are people who don't give a fuck about you whether or not your protest is peaceful. So why cater to them?

People getting called out for their morally wrong opinions and for spewing racism and sexism and people are going "YEAH BUT WHY DON'T YOU JUST TELL THEM THEY'RE WRONG AND THEY'LL CHANGE!"

If they were willing to listen they'd find numerous facts and people to help them listen and learn. The ones that choose not to, either to get a paycheck or because they are well and fully sucked into whatever Alt-Right, Fascist, whatever they market it as at the moment bullshit need to be called out and protested against, aggressively.

Because that shit is not okay.
 
G

Got

Banned
LucidMomentum said:
We already got one using the PUBLIC UNIVERSITY trap card :)

Also to everyone using the "why not just peacefully protest it?" line:

Martin Luther King did that. Look where it got him. Look how people treat minorities nowadays.

Apparently there are people who don't give a fuck about you whether or not your protest is peaceful. So why cater to them?

People getting called out for their morally wrong opinions and for spewing racism and sexism and people are going "YEAH BUT WHY DON'T YOU JUST TELL THEM THEY'RE WRONG AND THEY'LL CHANGE!"

If they were willing to listen they'd find numerous facts and people to help them listen and learn. The ones that choose not to, either to get a paycheck or because they are well and fully sucked into whatever Alt-Right, Fascist, whatever they market it as at the moment bullshit need to be called out and protested against, aggressively.

Because that shit is not okay.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it continue on. Ignorance is hard to get through a lot of the time.
 
F

Frozenprince

Banned
She isn't being censored. I expect better if you. She had the opportunity to move it back once single week and choose to not do so to get word of mouth.

You're all giving her what she wanted.
 
S

SoCoRoBo

Member
LucidMomentum said:
We already got one using the PUBLIC UNIVERSITY trap card :)

Also to everyone using the "why not just peacefully protest it?" line:

Martin Luther King did that. Look where it got him. Look how people treat minorities nowadays.
Click to expand...

He was extremely successful though? The metric of his success shouldn't be did he end all oppression of minorities in America because that would be absurd and impossible. But his work made life in America far, far better than it was before him. Is your argument then that violent protest is, on average, more successful than nonviolent protest? That's essentially an argument on the facts, and it's one that's not borne out on the evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-toppling-dictators/?utm_term=.c2723403e83b

(Article is not exactly analogous but can provide similar studies) When people say that boring parliamentary politics are the best way of achieving permanent and effective change, they're by and large correct. The visceral appeal of 'it's good and necessary to threaten fascist speakers' lines of argument and the portrayal of non-violent/discursive change as flaccid and ineffective is a really pernicious idea and one that's seemingly extremely popular on this forum.

There's no really principled way to celebrate what has happened here and also champion free speech at the same time. Which is in no way an endorsement of Coulter or her arguments which are entirely without merit.
 
M

MetroidPrimeRib

Banned
If they both had the same art style, it would be 100% impossible to tell Ben Garrison and that dude from the Onion who draws the crying Statue of Liberty apart
 
L

LucidMomentum

Member
SoCoRoBo said:
There's no really principled way to celebrate what has happened here and also champion free speech at the same time. Which is in no way an endorsement of Coulter or her arguments which are entirely without merit.
Click to expand...

Can you please elaborate?

Because there was no violation of free speech here.

She was getting flak for her speech, who chose to sponsor her, and the school was getting flak from people protesting all of the above.

The school then says they won't deny her entry, but did have to reschedule her speech.

Then her sponsors dropped support as a result of all of the above and instead of continuing on her own, she chose to cancel and blamed it on free speech.

The funny thing is, the free speech of those protesting showed sponsors and the school they didn't really want this happening.

Also lol at that cartoon. Coulter and Milo are incredibly racist, one has even advocated for rape and abuse of children, yet it's the ones protesting that want to burn books and praise the swastika and iron cross.

You know, not the person who unironically wears an iron cross.
 
V

ViperVisor

Member
I don't get this let's bring in professional terrible human beings for a chat.

It has to be done just based on tradition from 20-200 years ago where you didn't have access to outside the box ideas because your local library couldn't carry something published on a wall written in shit.
 
T

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
It's a sad day for the legion of conservatives that apparently don't actually understand what free speech is, but are constantly mad about it for arbitrary reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Bustle] Please Respect Mia Khalifa’s Rebrand
6 7 8 9 10
499
63K
Maiden Voyage replied
[SF Chronicle] San Francisco declares state of emergency over monkeypox
News Event
22
2K
Drew1440 replied
[WSJ] Company Documents Show Meta’s Flagship Metaverse Falling Short
News Business
38
3K
StreetsofBeige replied
Every “chronically online” conversation is the same [Vox]
Social Opinion Drama
47
4K
Lord Panda replied
UC Berkeley panel blames conservative students for left wing violence on campus
19
2K
Dontero replied
Top Bottom