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

[Luiz 4,253]

1 minute ago, Whispering said:

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...

they always take questions after a speech as far as i've seen .and they can always challenge anne to a debate at the college. i wasnt at all referring to protests of congressmen and such as that is an effective protest that shows a politician what his or her constituencies want. i'm talking about the goal of discrediting the conservatives who give these speeches at colleges. this is the issue i'm discussing here and this is the goal that these berkely protests and riots are counterproductive in achieving. 

 

if they decline to debate then there is your new source of ammo to hit them with. if you challenged her to a debate and she declined, i would have no problem if protests at colleges continued with the main emphasis of the protest being to label anne a coward for refusing to debate. turn the perception of "fear to engage" right back on her and all of the rest. this is the only thing that will work in stopping these conservative trolls. 

[ItWasntLaauv 6,392]

2 hours ago, PunkTheFunk said:

You mean left 

lmao I meant *correct* 

[Bebe 17,289]

14 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

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? 

But this I think is the problem:

"rhetoric that succeeds just by being heard and understood regardless of its actual merit or basis in truth"

"the reasons that make the argument stick in people's heads are deeper than the truth"

I understand why the initial reaction would be - well just don't let her speak on campus, don't give her a platform to spew her misinformation. The problem with this approach is that the inevitable reaction is this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/23/uc-berkeley-students-threaten-to-sue-over-ann-coulter-visit.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/04/21/ann-coulter-rejects-berkeleys-new-invite-gop-students-threaten-to-sue-college/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ann-coulter-vows-speak-at-berkeley-university-cancels-her-appearance-995610

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/04/23/is-ann-coulter-the-last-conservative-with-guts-n2316874

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Bill-Maher-Calls-Cancellation-of-Ann-Coulter-s-11091110.php

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/ann-coulter-defiant-after-berkeley-speech-cancellation/2017/04/20/8e6b3e0a-25e6-11e7-928e-3624539060e8_video.html

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/23/judge-jeanine-pirro-opening-statement-ann-coulter-berkeley-speech-canceled-snowflake

and so on....

In the end instead of reaching a hundred students, a significant number of whom are combative, unfriendly towards her ideas and would have the opportunity to confront her and challenge her, she ends up reaching countless people.

Every news site has a headline about how Berkeley has banned Ann Coulter, Conservative news hosts and pundits talk about how Anne should be allowed to speak and even 'progressive' or liberal news outlets reach out to Ann Coulter to get some kind of quote or response to her.

She gets more press, she gets more people checking out her message, she is able to get on platforms where she reaches more people and has her views unchallenged.... It just doesn't help.

I mean there is a reason why Milo Yiannopoulos is reportedly planning his 'comeback' at Berkeley:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-plots-comeback-at-uc-berkeley-996399

He was prevented from speaking there before so why try again? It's because he KNOWS students will protest, it's because he KNOWS he will not be allowed to speak and it's because he KNOWS that means more publicity, more limelight, more attention directed towards him and his ideas. It's like free advertising. He gets rejected, a whole bunch of news outlets cover it, a whole bunch of popular conservative outlets talk about how it's an outrage he was banned from speaking, conservative viewers go "Yeah!! F*ck liberals!! Go Milo!!" and he gains a bunch of supporters and a space in the cultural conversation.

After his speech got cancelled at Berkeley last time, his book sales went up 12740% overnight (source:http://vesselnews.io/berkeley-blowback-milo-book-sales-soar-12740-overnight/)

That's a whole lot of new people getting exposed to his ideas, he reached more people than he would have from a speech at Berkeley. 

Milo built a career from being banned from speaking, from being banned from universities, from being banned from twitter.


The problem is that these instigators like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos thrive off controversy. It's controversy that makes them hot, it's through some controversy that they have gained most of their supporters.

Surely it's more effective to let Ann speak at Berkeley, it's a far smaller audience and it's clearly not a crowd that's very sympathetic to her ideas, and to let her ideas be challenged and questioned there.

Ann knows what happened to Milo after he was banned from speaking at Berkeley, she knows that she would get a similar reaction. I was going to say 'that's why she wanted to speak there', but that's not true... She didn't want to speak at Berkeley, she didn't expect to be able to speak at Berkeley. She wanted protestors and university administrators to stop her from speaking at Berkeley so she could ride the resulting media wave and spread her message more effectively.

[Queen Gloria 3,464]

He's right, though. Ann Coulter may be an outrageous witch, but she has the right. Trying to silence someone shows immaturity and makes "us" no better than "them".  Let her make herself look like an idiot. 

[Scotty 87]

If you don't allow the opposite side a platform, how are you going to have a conversation? Without a conversation how are you going to potentially change their mind? Or at least let them understand where you're coming from.

If you act aggressive to the right, they're just going to act aggressive back. If liberals were being banned then everyone here would be up in arms.

[Cocaine Heart 4,768]

 

[MonsterPaws 2,745]

I'm with Bernie on this one.

[MonsterPaws 2,745]

20 hours ago, Whispering said:

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". 

Silencing anyone is cowardice, and I wouldn't describe that as "standing up."

Standing up would be confronting them head-on with our own reasoning.

If we disagree with her the best thing we can do is confront her, argue against her and let bystanders know which side to take. But how'd that be possible if all we do is put a tape over people's mouths when we disagree with them?

This is becoming a problem on college campuses too, the students aren't learning because they're being grouped up into their respective sides with hardly any communication except for protests or complaints to the college office.

That is NOT how an education is supposed to be.

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, MonsterPaws said:

Silencing anyone is cowardice, and I wouldn't describe that as "standing up."

Standing up would be confronting them head-on with our own reasoning.

If we disagree with her the best thing we can do is confront her, argue against her and let bystanders know which side to take. But how'd that be possible if all we do is put a tape over people's mouths when we disagree with them?

This is becoming a problem on college campuses too, the students aren't learning because they're being grouped up into their respective sides with hardly any communication except for protests or complaints to the college office.

That is NOT how an education is supposed to be.

Protesting is not silencing. I was directly referring to those who peacefully demonstrate. 

[bujibu 463]

As much as I can't stand Ann Coulter and despise everything Richard Spencer stands for, these degenerates have a right to speak as guaranteed by the first amendment. Hate speech CAN be permitted under the law, as seen in the 2011 Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps. The Court ruled in favor of Phelps in an 8-1 decision, determining that their speech related to a public issue was completely protected, and could not be prevented as it was on public property (oddly enough Alito was the only dissenting opinion). The Phelps clan protested a marine's funeral and caused severe emotional distress to the family yet the court didn't rule in their favor.

The caveat to hate speech is that it isn't protected if there is direct incitement of violence toward a particular person/group, what is known as fighting words. Though from what research I've done it can be confusing as what is considered fighting words/actions as it can be interpreted differently, with courts taking varying positions such as hate speech toward/burning the American flag (one case allowed it) and accusing someone of being a fascist/racketeer in the Chaplinsky decision (court ruled against accuser).

State universities are public spaces and by law, Coulter's and Spencer's speeches are protected there, as much as I can't stand their views and a majority of journalists agree. However, keep in mind that free speech is designed to cover the whole spectrum, from far left to far right. You can hold a speech saying why straight, white people and christians are abominations, disgusting people. It gives you every right to say Coulter is an evil woman and Spencer is scum of the Earth intent on dividing people and establishing white supremacy.

I'm a firm believer in the existence of safe spaces (I've used them) and trigger warnings (for sensitive content like discussing rape in class). However, universities need to be a discourse of ideas, whether unhealthy or healthy. Hearing gross opinions allows one to analyze an argument and craft an intelligent response, which can be a beneficial learning experience - the point of an education. Engagement and conflict sucks but just saying "I don't want to hear that, that's offensive to me," is not enough. I hate conflict but it is a huge aspect of life, and something we all have to deal with.

Will intelligently explaining your arguments always work? No, but you can persuade those who hover on that middle line, who have the ability to reason and learn. If you have the opportunity have the patience to try to educate someone without looking down on them, no matter how frustrating their views are. I had to explain what it means to be gay to my parents and what matters to me and people like me and now they have a greater understanding of what LGBT people deal with. I even got them to use proper pronouns when addressing trans people. They would've never learned that on their own. 

Is Coulter and Spencer's speech frightening? Yes, but their arguments are shallow and baseless. If there's anything I've learned, it's that I don't learn anything when I feel comfortable and I learn more from doing uncomfortable things or being in an uncomfortable situation. I highly encourage watching the Q&A section of Spencer's recent university speech where a black girl took him down a few pegs with a simple statement. That girl wasn't afraid to be in a room full of racists, and we shouldn't be afraid of a room full of (insert phobe/ists here).

 

[MonsterPaws 2,745]

2 hours ago, Whispering said:

Protesting is not silencing. I was directly referring to those who peacefully demonstrate. 

I was referring to people who don't believe in freedom of speech (or believe on their own contradictory version of it).

All for peaceful protesting.

[Redstreak 6,653]

Remember all those times people with bad ideas were debated and oh wow no one changed their opinion and the people with awful ideas still continued to marginalize people?

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

18 hours ago, Bebe said:

But this I think is the problem:

"rhetoric that succeeds just by being heard and understood regardless of its actual merit or basis in truth"

"the reasons that make the argument stick in people's heads are deeper than the truth"

I understand why the initial reaction would be - well just don't let her speak on campus, don't give her a platform to spew her misinformation. The problem with this approach is that the inevitable reaction is this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/23/uc-berkeley-students-threaten-to-sue-over-ann-coulter-visit.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/04/21/ann-coulter-rejects-berkeleys-new-invite-gop-students-threaten-to-sue-college/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ann-coulter-vows-speak-at-berkeley-university-cancels-her-appearance-995610

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/04/23/is-ann-coulter-the-last-conservative-with-guts-n2316874

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Bill-Maher-Calls-Cancellation-of-Ann-Coulter-s-11091110.php

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/ann-coulter-defiant-after-berkeley-speech-cancellation/2017/04/20/8e6b3e0a-25e6-11e7-928e-3624539060e8_video.html

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/23/judge-jeanine-pirro-opening-statement-ann-coulter-berkeley-speech-canceled-snowflake

and so on....

In the end instead of reaching a hundred students, a significant number of whom are combative, unfriendly towards her ideas and would have the opportunity to confront her and challenge her, she ends up reaching countless people.

Every news site has a headline about how Berkeley has banned Ann Coulter, Conservative news hosts and pundits talk about how Anne should be allowed to speak and even 'progressive' or liberal news outlets reach out to Ann Coulter to get some kind of quote or response to her.

She gets more press, she gets more people checking out her message, she is able to get on platforms where she reaches more people and has her views unchallenged.... It just doesn't help.

I mean there is a reason why Milo Yiannopoulos is reportedly planning his 'comeback' at Berkeley:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-plots-comeback-at-uc-berkeley-996399

He was prevented from speaking there before so why try again? It's because he KNOWS students will protest, it's because he KNOWS he will not be allowed to speak and it's because he KNOWS that means more publicity, more limelight, more attention directed towards him and his ideas. It's like free advertising. He gets rejected, a whole bunch of news outlets cover it, a whole bunch of popular conservative outlets talk about how it's an outrage he was banned from speaking, conservative viewers go "Yeah!! F*ck liberals!! Go Milo!!" and he gains a bunch of supporters and a space in the cultural conversation.

After his speech got cancelled at Berkeley last time, his book sales went up 12740% overnight (source:http://vesselnews.io/berkeley-blowback-milo-book-sales-soar-12740-overnight/)

That's a whole lot of new people getting exposed to his ideas, he reached more people than he would have from a speech at Berkeley. 

Milo built a career from being banned from speaking, from being banned from universities, from being banned from twitter.


The problem is that these instigators like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos thrive off controversy. It's controversy that makes them hot, it's through some controversy that they have gained most of their supporters.

Surely it's more effective to let Ann speak at Berkeley, it's a far smaller audience and it's clearly not a crowd that's very sympathetic to her ideas, and to let her ideas be challenged and questioned there.

Ann knows what happened to Milo after he was banned from speaking at Berkeley, she knows that she would get a similar reaction. I was going to say 'that's why she wanted to speak there', but that's not true... She didn't want to speak at Berkeley, she didn't expect to be able to speak at Berkeley. She wanted protestors and university administrators to stop her from speaking at Berkeley so she could ride the resulting media wave and spread her message more effectively.

I concede, that's a valid point.

It seems to me more a consequence of media frenzy, but still, it could be counterproductive. I guess there's no perfect solution to this conundrum. If she speaks, the ideas are still being engaged with and given some modicum of credence, which still has the potential to indoctrinate and sway minds, though there can be some interference from detractors which would help. If she doesn't speak, she uses the backlash to actually increase the scope of her platform. If there is no way to remove her platform or make it seem uninteresting and not worth engaging with, then aggressively (but non violently or brashly  ) refuting her seems to be the only option I can think of running on 2 hours of sleep in 2 days  

Spoiler

Hate to be that person, but my original post was just supposed to be a counterclaim to the idea that "Not engaging" is an exercise in intellectual weakness, or some kind of "fear" of hearing claims that go against your beliefs. I still stand by my position that it is not. I also still truly believe that the idea that listening to beliefs contrary to your own as a way of testing your beliefs is idealistic and that some people cannot be "reached" with logical debate and argument and reason Perhaps I'm misappropriating the phrase, but the "marketplace of ideas" is in many ways akin to the meritocracy, false It might not really be a "debate", atmosphere, it could just be her speaking, asking questions from specific people, heckling/detracting, etc. There might be security or people that keep it all under wraps so that no fights break out... And there's still a kind of disconnect, where the virulence of Ann's rhetoric is regarded with the respect one might give to someone making a severely inoffensive claim, that rubs me the wrong way. Like "Okay, but here me out; what if we just killed all the Jews?" (Not that Ann's rhetoric is quite on that level  ) and everyone being forced to sit down and seriously think about it