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

[Whispering 18,865]

30 minutes ago, Lion Heart said:

He's right. 

 

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

People against hate speech and disinformation campaigns against minorities aren't SJWs. Some people are very much justified in being offended. 

Burning stuff down is never the answer, but standing up for human decency and against hate speech doesn't make one a "cry baby". 

[PunkTheFunk 125,703]

45 minutes ago, ItWasntLaauv said:

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

You mean left 

[FATCAT 60,886]

It's sad this has to be said, of course she has the freedom to speak. 

[FATCAT 60,886]

41 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

 

While she might have some kind of "right" on a level, the idea that not engaging with her beliefs is intellectual weakness is wrong.

He's not saying you have to attend and that you have to interact with her or her crowds, just that trying to stop her from speaking is a sign that you don't want people to hear what she has to say. We should be showing people how nuts and evil she is, but we can't do that if people think we fear her mouth.

[Sizzily 14,571]

What she's saying isn't good but she still has the right. 

[Luiz 4,253]

16 hours 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. 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.

not engaging with her rhetoric and disinfo is leaving it unchecked. you can say that it gives it credence to acknowledge her BS but the fact is that with who we have in the white house just goes to show that the credence already exists for her kind of ideas. the only thing left to do is to engage and discredit her through debate because simply yelling and chanting in protest will help nothing at this point other than further demonstrate how afraid liberals are of her ideas. 

if you leave her ideas unchecked by a logical refutation of them, then they are left to be believed by anyone who hears them. you have to refute her to her face in front of her supporters on a platform everyone can view in order to show those who may be wavering  or those who are undecided on the issues can come over the the logical side of the debate. to ignore dangerous rhetoric at this point is to empower it. we are past the point where simple protests can be effective. trump won and the more liberals scream and cry about it from a safe space of echo chambers, the more new generations will view them as weak minded and intellectually defunct.  liberals are a laughing stock to impressionable minds and we need to present counterarguments along side protests if we have to. 

 

we are beyond the point of protests having any effect. it is because of these protests that the conservative message is being spread through the media coverage of the destruction. even if a protest remains peaceful at the college, it no longer has much of an effect. a huge portion of our country believes in the conservative BS so no matter whether you believe it they are valid or deserve validity, the fact is that they now do have it and we can only take that away through a demonstration of why those ideas are invalid. this can only be done by engaging in debate because protesting is what we have been doing for the past 2 years and so far, what has it won for us? a congress full of republicans and a president that is entirely unfit for the job.

relying solely on protests or refutations from the safety of a liberal website or blog are no longer going to work. you have to confront the issue head on if you are going to demonstrate how erroneous their bigoted ideologies are. 

[phillipaf 685]

Is anybody here aware of what's going on in my hometown Cologne, Germany right now?? This is a total mess. Bernie is ultimately right. Trying to shut people up just because you think their opinion is wrong (Ann Coulter's obviously is) is a sign of intellectual weakness. No doubt. And you can apply his exact words on the situation right now in Cologne too. 

[Haldy 1,295]

You don't stop ridiculous views with suppression, that's how you make martyrs. Instead, you need to challenge and fight those ridiculous views and prove that they are, indeed, ridiculous. I hope she speaks and I hope she's trashed, because her views are trash.

[lego 44,165]

25 minutes ago, Sizzily said:

What she's saying is good but she still has the right. 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

35 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

He's not saying you have to attend and that you have to interact with her or her crowds, just that trying to stop her from speaking is a sign that you don't want people to hear what she has to say. We should be showing people how nuts and evil she is, but we can't do that if people think we fear her mouth.

Yes and no. I'm aware that's what hes saying. I'm saying that the reason for doing this however is not because people are too afraid or incapable of debunking it, but because giving that kind of view a platform in general still empowers it and perpetuates it. This dream scenario we have where she says something like "Black on black violence is the real problem" and someone shouts out against her rationally and logically and suddenly it means the whole room agrees with that person and becomes enlightened and starts throwing watermelon at her face and everyone goes home enlightened that Anne Coulter is a racist and that they shut her down just isn't the most likely outcome  Obv, its still what someone should do, and it may help others in the room who are more likely to fall for her BS, but I'm not convinced that its the most effective thing... or even possible sometimes. 

24 minutes ago, Luiz said:

not engaging with her rhetoric and disinfo is leaving it unchecked. you can say that it gives it credence to acknowledge her BS but the fact is that with who we have in the white house just goes to show that the credence already exists for her kind of ideas. the only thing left to do is to engage and discredit her through debate because simply yelling and chanting in protest will help nothing at this point other than further demonstrate how afraid liberals are of her ideas. 

if you leave her ideas unchecked by a logical refutation of them, then they are left to be believed by anyone who hears them. you have to refute her to her face in front of her supporters on a platform everyone can view in order to show those who may be wavering  or those who are undecided on the issues can come over the the logical side of the debate. to ignore dangerous rhetoric at this point is to empower it. we are past the point where simple protests can be effective. trump won and the more liberals scream and cry about it from a safe space of echo chambers, the more new generations will view them as weak minded and intellectually defunct.  liberals are a laughing stock to impressionable minds and we need to present counterarguments along side protests if we have to. 

 

we are beyond the point of protests having any effect. it is because of these protests that the conservative message is being spread through the media coverage of the destruction. even if a protest remains peaceful at the college, it no longer has much of an effect. a huge portion of our country believes in the conservative BS so no matter whether you believe it they are valid or deserve validity, the fact is that they now do and we can only take that away through a demonstration of why those ideas are invalid. this can only be done by engaging in debate because protesting is what we have been doing for the past 2 years and so far, what has it won for us? a congress full of republicans and a president that is entirely unfit for the job.

relying solely on protests or refutations from the safety of a liberal website or blog are no longer going to work. you have to confront the issue head on if you are going to demonstrate how erroneous their bigoted ideologies are. 

You can and should refute her ideas when they are presented obviously... and with conviction and assuredness, but when we are at the stages before a speech even occurs, I'd argue that not giving the speech any sort of importance is potentially more effective in the long run. Refutations of illogical arguments are important, but they don't always work, and sometimes they can be counter-productive, believe it or not... and thats kind of my main point. Many people claim to be open-minded, but relatively few are when it comes to the simple process of acquiring new information that contradicts pre-held information and deciding to change a view. This is only exacerbated by the political climate. This is especially less likely when people like Ann (reactionaries) use talking points that make our logical, fact-informed responses sound like "lies", and its an us vs them. I'm not saying "peaceful, quiet protest will stop the nazis /s". All things have nuance. When faced with views like hers, the least u can do is counter them, because leaving them unchecked does give them power... but countering them, especially in certain contexts, may have little to no effect as well. The reality is that college guest speakers, lecturers, etc. are not always here for a "debate", and "open forums" sometimes aren't really that. Believe it or not, the people that attend these things are not always people from all walks of life, democratically engaging in an exercise of criticizing their own thought and engaging with opposing views. Many times its people with those same views coming to get reinforcement and feel safe amongst people that agree with them. Sometimes its those people and the strong opposition. And yes there are those on the fence who don't feel particularly either way, and those people need to not be inundated with alternative facts (tm). And when just being overly exposed to these alternative facts is enough get people to tacitly believe them, what do we do then? 

18 minutes ago, Haldy said:

You don't stop ridiculous views with suppression, that's how you make martyrs. Instead, you need to challenge and fight those ridiculous views and prove that they are, indeed, ridiculous.

I totally understand this, and I would've said the same thing a year ago... But what if you are confronted with rhetoric that succeeds just by being heard and understood regardless of its actual merit or basis in truth? What if simply debunking it all doesn't help, because the reasons that make the argument stick in people's heads are deeper than the truth  What if making it known from the highest authorities on a subject, and in public space easily accessible to most all people that X is FALSE has no effect? What is the solution then? 

[Sizzily 14,571]

14 minutes ago, lego said:

 

omg, I meant to type isn't  

[Luiz 4,253]

23 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Yes and no. I'm aware that's what hes saying. I'm saying that the reason for doing this however is not because people are too afraid or incapable of debunking it, but because giving that kind of view a platform in general still empowers it and perpetuates it. This dream scenario we have where she says something like "Black on black violence is the real problem" and someone shouts out against her rationally and logically and suddenly it means the whole room agrees with that person and becomes enlightened and starts throwing watermelon at her face and everyone goes home enlightened that Anne Coulter is a racist and that they shut her down just isn't the most likely outcome  Obv, its still what someone should do, and it may help others in the room who are more likely to fall for her BS, but I'm not convinced that its the most effective thing... or even possible sometimes. 

You can and should refute her ideas when they are presented obviously... and with conviction and assuredness, but when we are at the stages before a speech even occurs, I'd argue that not giving the speech any sort of importance is potentially more effective in the long run. Refutations of illogical arguments are important, but they don't always work, and sometimes they can be counter-productive, believe it or not... and thats kind of my main point. Many people claim to be open-minded, but relatively few are when it comes to the simple process of acquiring new information that contradicts pre-held information and deciding to change a view. This is only exacerbated by the political climate. This is especially less likely when people like Ann (reactionaries) use talking points that make our logical, fact-informed responses sound like "lies", and its an us vs them. I'm not saying "peaceful, quiet protest will stop the nazis /s". All things have nuance. When faced with views like hers, the least u can do is counter them, because leaving them unchecked does give them power... but countering them, especially in certain contexts, may have little to no effect as well. The reality is that college guest speakers, lecturers, etc. are not always here for a "debate", and "open forums" sometimes aren't really that. Believe it or not, the people that attend these things are not always people from all walks of life, democratically engaging in an exercise of criticizing their own thought and engaging with opposing views. Many times its people with those same views coming to get reinforcement and feel safe amongst people that agree with them. Sometimes its those people and the strong opposition. And yes there are those on the fence who don't feel particularly either way, and those people need to not be inundated with alternative facts (tm). 

I totally understand this, and I would've said the same thing a year ago... But what if you are confronted with rhetoric that succeeds just by being heard and understood regardless of its actual merit or basis in truth? What if simply debunking it all doesn't help, because the reasons that make the argument stick in people's heads are deeper than the truth  What if making it known from the highest authorities on a subject, and in public space easily accessible to most all people that X is FALSE has no effect? What is the solution then? 

my promlem with your characterization of those who attend her lectures is that you have seemed to give up on them as set in their ways and that their ideologies are impenetrable by a logical rebuttal. i will not just relegate her followers to a group of stubborn ignorant imbeciles incapable of changing their ideas. people change their views all the time and i will not give up on people just because they seem to have crossed some kind of point of no return. just because only "few" are potential converts doesnt mean you never try.

to not offer any kind of opposition to her rhetoric is definitely not going to win any minds over to our side of the debate. i'm definitely not saying that everyone attending a coulter speech will abandon their cognitive dissonance and accept our views, but the method of combating her speeches with solely noise does nothing other than give Anne and her followers vindication that the opposition is afraid of them. 

 

the most counterproductive response to these speeches is the protests that have afforded them national coverage and an even greater exposure to who these bigots are and what their ideas are. my mother who is 60 years old never knew who the **** milo or anne coulter were but now she does due to the fruitless noise and violence protesters have given the media to broadcast accross their media waves. now my mother and father know of these names when they shouldnt. ignoring their message and treating it as fringe and non-intellectual may have kept their damage in the darkness but the protests gave them a platform larger than their ideas could have ever earned them. the most significant aid in Milo's rise to prominence has was the protesters themselves who gave his message the attention of major media outlets with the coverage of the protests. 

 

the form of protest the left has enacted to combat conservative, bigoted rhetoric has done nothing other than been counterproductive towards their goal in the worst way. protest must be coupled with debate and they would do well to invite these conservative talking heads to their colleges for just that.  the time for protesting and censorship as an effective defense has come and gone and the only weapon we have left is our intellect. 

will some be even immune to intellectual refutation? sure, but that doesnt mean we give up on the entire bunch. this is a war for the minds of america and we shouldnt surrender any just because we have given up on them and labeled them as incapable of a change of heart. 

 

i still have faith in humanity god dammit  

[Bette Davis 12,742]

Silencing people you disagree with is so archaic. As much as I loathe her, I support her right to speak. Don't silence her; kill her with facts and logic.

[Supersonic 49,376]

Where's my platform where I can talk about putting Anne Coulter iron maiden then Bernie?

[Whispering 18,865]

22 minutes ago, Luiz said:

not engaging with her rhetoric and disinfo is leaving it unchecked. you can say that it gives it credence to acknowledge her BS but the fact is that with who we have in the white house just goes to show that the credence already exists for her kind of ideas. the only thing left to do is to engage and discredit her through debate because simply yelling and chanting in protest will help nothing at this point other than further demonstrate how afraid liberals are of her ideas.

we are beyond the point of protests having any effect. it is because of these protests that the conservative message is being spread through the media coverage of the destruction. even if a protest remains peaceful at the college, it no longer has much of an effect. a huge portion of our country believes in the conservative BS so no matter whether you believe it they are valid or deserve validity, the fact is that they now do and we can only take that away through a demonstration of why those ideas are invalid. this can only be done by engaging in debate because protesting is what we have been doing for the past 2 years and so far, what has it won for us? a congress full of republicans and a president that is entirely unfit for the job.

relying solely on protests or refutations from the safety of a liberal website or blog are no longer going to work. you have to confront the issue head on if you are going to demonstrate how erroneous their bigoted ideologies are. 

This isn't a debate, right? Isn't she speaking on campus? Plus, arguing with the illogical doesn't help anything. Two people who are logical can disagree on how to get to a certain place, but it's fine if they are trying to get to the same place. Many people simply can't agree with someone who is saying that we should throw all immigrants and their natural born children out, ban all Muslims, shut down all Mosques, implement stop and frisk, and discriminate against the LGBT community. Racists, homophobic and xenophobic language isn't simply a disagreement in how to get to the same goal. 

Liberals have just started to protest. They are not relying solely on protest marches and rallies. People are contacting their legislators, running for local offices (or getting involved in campaigns), showing up at town halls of their congressman's office, writing letters, talking to others, starting local advocacy groups, etc. What does this do? Increases the visibility, demonstrates power, promotes a sense of solidarity, builds relationships with other activists and energizes participants. 

Look at the noise and problems the airport protests made, and the town halls primarily over insurance. The BLM protests caused many cities to examine their policing policies and to add body cameras. I could go on and on...