Bernie Sanders: Anne Coulter has right to speak at Berkely.

[Whispering 18,865]

18 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

Great. But they can also push harder questions. It shouldn't be hard to ask Trump on SPECIFICS regarding healthcare and the tax code. It shouldn't be hard for any politician. That's their job. And we, normal everyday people, are use to politicians stonewalling around the issues. 

But going back the the OP, I think we should start questioning rather than protesting. Discussions are better. And they achieve much quicker resolutions.

Spicy will just lie, no matter what. He's performing for an audience of one. Trump will say "It will be great, believe me" over in over in various ways. He's never going to give specifics because he doesn't know any. Everyone knows that. His thirty five per cent doesn't care, they just want him to hate the same people they hate. 

[Qualle1 1,385]

36 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said:

Restricting speech deemed as offensive to religion is a bit extreme, no? 

I understand sexual orientation and ethnicity; these are things you can't control. But religion is just a set of beliefs you can choose and should be open to full debate, whether you're offended or not. 

Also...how does one define what's "insulting" and "offensive"?

Here is an example for hate speech regarding religion, which would be not allowed here in Germany:

"All Muslims are child abuser and rapists and should be gassed!"

Please have a look:

https://no-hate-speech.de/en/knowledge/

[PunkTheFunk 125,703]

7 minutes ago, Qualle1 said:

Here is an example for hate speech regarding religion, which would be not allowed here in Germany:

"All Muslims are child abuser and rapists and should be gassed!"

Please have a look:

https://no-hate-speech.de/en/knowledge/

Okay that makes more sense 

[JanPianoMusic 730]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

Exactly. The problem is with the violent protestors. A university does have a duty to protect its students and to keep their campus as safe as possible. 

Right. The message of the protestors is at its core "We do not want you to speak here" and that is the least democratic sentiment ever. 

[ItWasntLaauv 6,392]

I really, really don't like Anne but she has the right to speak her opinion, if us Democrats riot about her speaking, it's really polarizing to others that don't think like we do, same thing happened with that Milo guy. It would make others think that Democrats are snowflakes or whatever republicans like to call dems now since we won't let others' thoughts be heard. She'll probably make a fool out of herself all on her own and lose some of her credibility anyway, she doesn't need our help.

Let me reiterate that I'm a liberal democrat, but Bernie is correct.

[Whispering 18,865]

7 minutes ago, JanPianoMusic said:

Right. The message of the protestors is at its core "We do not want you to speak here" and that is the least democratic sentiment ever. 

The protesters are fine. They can hate that she is speaking there. They can hate everything she stands for. The problem is when it turns violent and destructive. The first amendment also includes the right to a peaceful assembly to counteract or oppose speech that we don't agree with. 

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

2 hours ago, TheCure said:

I love Ann.  And I love the First Amendment.  NO EXCEPTIONS!  Thousands of men died for this right to free speech.

Lmao

[djBuffoon 12,235]

I may not like or agree with anything that she says, but she absolutely has the right to speak her opinions if an audience would like to hear her. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Controversial opinion incoming, but I disagree... kind of

While she might have some kind of "right" on a level, the idea that not engaging with her beliefs is intellectual weakness is wrong. You do not have to give any sort of credence to ideas and opinions that are dangerous, disinformation-ridden, and false on an intellectual level.  Paradox of Tolerance teas tbh. If even the ideas that have the power to mislead millions are taken as seriously as those that are spoken with complete assurance and scientific fact, we give these ideas power. That is how genocide and things of that caliber happen. Mass disinformation for political gain is demonstrably harmful, and it gets power by simply being heard and repeated until the general consensus becomes that it is fact... and imo we should do everything in our power to impede this process. It's self defense, its preventative. It is not intellectual weakness. Yes, some people on that campus may have the logic, rationale, and not already pre-determined mindset to easily dismiss her, but what she says will resonate with some people, and that's dangerous. Her point is not to convince the Gender and Sexuality studies majors and people who take courses on feminism and women's studies, or any people with a particular interest in historical accuracy, social context, etc. (history, sociology, anthropology, race, etc.) its to convince all of the other people who already have the conditioning to take and accept what she says as fact, even if subtly. Our cognitive biases are strong. Sometimes when we remember convoluted debates and conversations and arguments, we remember the falsehood as true or see it as more likely to be true just by the sheer amount it was repeated, or if it was repeated first. (See, Millions of rational Americans starting to believe that maybe Clinton was guilty of something, just by the sheer amount of false accusations and propaganda that was being made about her) People who "argue" with this tactic are not stupid, they have agendas, and they will abuse this fact  

Ofc, the counterargument is that this right to share ideas with masses is much more important objectively regardless of the outcome of that sharing of ideas. I just think this is a case where the "ends" are so potentially dangerous to any sort of relative moral fabric of society that it should be prevented And this isn't just hogwash I'm coming up with out of thin air, its a thought I've kind of been building towards for the last year and a half or so, and one that I've seen preached by academics for even longer.

 

TL;DR, Freedom of speech is good, but freedom to spread disinformation is dangerous and should be heavily opposed. Not engaging with Coulter's ideas is an act of defiance and strength, not intellectual weakness. I think students have the right to protest speakers of any topic at any campus and the decision of officials to rescind the invitation or whatever is justified  

The solution to this if they do not get her uninvited or whatever (which would not be censorship  ) is just to protest her. Make the protest of her be more important and seem more interesting than her actual speech. Obscure her talking points, etc.

[Lion Heart 15,041]

He's right. 

 

SJWs needs to stop being a bunch of cry babies and stop BURNING stuff down.

[TheCure 125]

5 minutes ago, AlexanderLevi2 said:

Lmao

Just hilarious.  Show some respect.

[TheCure 125]

4 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Controversial opinion incoming, but I disagree... kind of

While she might have some kind of "right" on a level, the idea that not engaging with her beliefs is intellectual weakness is wrong. You do not have to give any sort of credence to ideas and opinions that are dangerous, disinformation-ridden, and false on an intellectual level.  Paradox of Tolerance teas tbh. If even the ideas that have the power to mislead millions are taken as seriously as those that are spoken with complete assurance and scientific fact, we give these ideas power. That is how genocide and things of that caliber happen. Mass disinformation for political gain is demonstrably harmful, and it gets power by simply being heard and repeated until the general consensus becomes that it is fact... and imo we should do everything in our power to impede this process. It's self defense, its preventative. It is not intellectual weakness. Yes, some people on that campus may have the logic, rationale, and not already pre-determined mindset to easily dismiss her, but what she says will resonate with some people, and that's dangerous. Her point is not to convince the Gender and Sexuality studies majors and people who take courses on feminism and women's studies, or any people with a particular interest in historical accuracy, social context, etc. (history, sociology, anthropology, race, etc.) its to convince all of the other people who already have the conditioning to take and accept what she says as fact, even if subtly. 

Ofc, the counterargument is that this right to share ideas with masses is much more important objectively regardless of the outcome of that sharing of ideas. I just think this is a case where the "ends" are so potentially dangerous to any sort of relative moral fabric of society that it should be prevented And this isn't just hogwash I'm coming up with out of thin air, its a thought I've kind of been building towards for the last year and a half or so, and one that I've seen preached by academics for even longer. TL;DR, Freedom of speech is good, but freedom to spread disinformation is dangerous and should be heavily opposed. Not engaging with Coulter's ideas is an act of defiance and strength, not intellectual weakness. I think students have the right to protest speakers of any topic at any campus and the decision of officials to rescind the invitation or whatever is justified  

Who chose you as arbiter of what is "disinformation"?  Not engaging with ideas you disagree with IS a fundamental weakness.  If they are bad ideas you'll easily be able to destroy them with facts and reason.  They say sunlight is the best disinfectant - let the sun shine in.  

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 minutes ago, TheCure said:

Who chose you as arbiter of what is "disinformation"?  Not engaging with ideas you disagree with IS a fundamental weakness.  If they are bad ideas you'll easily be able to destroy them with facts and reason.  They say sunlight is the best disinfectant - let the sun shine in.  

I see you didn't understand what I said

Disinformation can be objectively measured and countered. In fact, it often is in many countries, but what makes it dangerous is the fact that it is presented in a way that convinces people that despite the fact that it is not "true", it is indeed somehow true. We can debunk statistics and anecdotes on racial violence, sexual violence, feminism, wage gap, etc. all day, and in public forums, but if people want to believe certain lies, they will do so, strongly. Source: Recent political climate changes in many major countries, also all of history? lol

Also, no one said fundamental weakness, Bernie said "intellectual weakness", and that's false. It is rather to  me that those with intellect can understand the importance of not engaging with certain ideas. Sure in the reality that everything is subjective, you can argue against all of this, but really.. There are things we know, but cannot know with full certainty, esp. when mass information is spread.

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

20 minutes ago, TheCure said:

Just hilarious.  Show some respect.

Do you know what horrendous things the US has done to other countries? I respect the bravery it takes to enter into a branch.... But you still have to earn my respect.

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

27 minutes ago, Lion Heart said:

He's right. 

 

SJWs needs to stop being a bunch of cry babies and stop BURNING stuff down.