Bernie Sanders slams Berkeley activists’ attempts to silence Ann Coulter: ‘I don’t like this’ - Polidicks

[quote]Violent activists at the University of California have prompted Sen. Bernard Sanders to side with an unlikely ally: Ann Coulter. Anti-Trump protests, threats of violence aimed at conservative speakers, and the cancellation of a scheduled April 27 speech by author Ann Coulter has Vermont’s senator worried about free speech on Berkeley’s campus. “I don’t like this. I don’t like it,” Mr. Sanders told The Huffington Post at an Omaha, Nebraska, event last week, the website reported Saturday. “Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.” Mr. Sander’s comment comes in stark contrast to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who has said that Ms. Coulter’s social commentary is not protected by the First Amendment. Mr. Sanders told Huffington Post that such attempts to stifle free speech are a sign of “intellectual weakness.” “Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way,” the Democrat told the website.[/quote] [url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/24/bernie-sanders-slams-berkeley-activists-attempts-t/[/url]

How can you not like this dude? (rhetorical question, not directed)

they'll turn on him

This is why I like Bernie

I mean, he's right. Students absolutely have a right to protest speakers. They have a first amendment right to express their grievances and petition the student government or university administration to stop the speaker. That's absolutely, perfectly okay, no matter what their political leaning is. But responding to speakers with violence is the absolute wrong way to go about it. This [I]isn't[/I] to say that there is never any situation where political violence and/or violent protest is justified. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that violent protest against riot police in Venezuela is somehow unjustified [I]exclusively[/I] because it's violent. But there's a [I]huge fucking difference[/I] between a corrupt government (with borderline starving constituents) and some right-wing speaker. Protests are okay in this situation - violence is just absolutely totally unnecessary and does nothing but amplify the inaccurate message that people like Milo and Coulter want to push.

But he's not a Democrat, so why is this article referring to him as such? Anyway, I agree with Bernie. Let people speak. Intellectual debate will determine whether or not what people say hold water.

I agree with Bernie. The GOP and the propaganda networks seen in Fox and Breitbart are the unrepentant enemies of the American people. They deserve to be torn down and ridiculed, but don't silence them. Let them speak their piece so that we can destroy it on honest terms.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;52148753]But he's not a Democrat, so why is this article referring to him as such?[/QUOTE] I think it's because he ran as one.

Let her speak! [Sp]so everyone understands why you shouldn't listen to her and why she's an absolutely awful person.[/sp]

This is exactly the type of mindset that is creating a wave of populism across the country; these people feel they have no voice because those on the left refuse to listen, you're either with them or against them. I am extremely liberal, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. It is your right as an American citizen to disagree with views that you do not believe in, but it is absolutely unamerican to silence someone for having a different view than yourself. You should listen, share views, and either find common ground or respectfully disagree. [b]That[/b] is what is wrong with America right now.

Gulag him

We need more politicians with Bernie's integrity.

[QUOTE=grr164;52149962]This is exactly the type of mindset that is creating a wave of populism across the country; these people feel they have no voice because those on the left refuse to listen, you're either with them or against them. I am extremely liberal, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. It is your right as an American citizen to disagree with views that you do not believe in, but it is absolutely unamerican to silence someone for having a different view than yourself. You should listen, share views, and either find common ground or respectfully disagree. [b]That[/b] is what is wrong with America right now.[/QUOTE] Any claim or belief that requires censorship to prop it up is already worthless... I forget who said that, but it still rings true. You can say that your beliefs are objectively correct, but that doesn't mean shit because we don't live in an objective world. You can shut down speakers who aren't ideologically pure enough for you, but at that point you can forget about convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you. The current climate of left-wing college "activism" isn't protest or outreach, it's just group masturbation.

[QUOTE=Luni;52150443] The current climate of left-wing college "activism" isn't protest or outreach, it's just group masturbation.[/QUOTE] It's better than the alternative.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52150610]It's better than the alternative.[/QUOTE] How so? What's the alternative? I would like to think the alternative is not acting like petulant children.

The best way to destroy someone is to let them speak and make a fool of themselves so you can show how wrong they are on just about everything. That's how you strip power from people Hitting them empowers them and their followers that they are being marginalised and causes all sorts of issues. In fact you'll find more people will support their cause simply because they're against violence. College leftist need to embrace public forum and so does some hard right conservatives too

[QUOTE=Megadave;52150610]It's better than the alternative.[/QUOTE] No, it really isn't. And I say this as a massive leftist. We need to give these people and their unpleasant, ignorant viewpoints the freedom to be aired so that we can shred them using logic, rationalism and compassion (something they lack). By not doing that you're adopting an anti-intellectual stance as surely as they are, and creating fertile soil for their ideals to propagate in.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52148737]They have a first amendment right to express their grievances and petition the student government or university administration to stop the speaker.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the first amendment only covered Government censorship, not all censorship?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52150728]The best way to destroy someone is to let them speak and make a fool of themselves so you can show how wrong they are on just about everything. That's how you strip power from people[/QUOTE] Do you have any evidence of this beyond feel-good theorycrafting? Historically, we've let people spew ridiculous, hateful rhetoric and they've gotten large followings from it. Donald Trump, Piers Morgan, Alex Jones -- these people make fools of themselves repeatedly, continuously, in public, and yet they have massive cults of personality. I can't disagree with Berkley students trying to shutdown a speaker at their school. If they don't want to give a platform to someone with dangerous, hateful ideas, then they have no obligation to. The [I]nation[/I] has promised Ann Coulter her right to speech, but not the venue. Violence, of course, is completely unwarranted and inappropriate.' [QUOTE=Craigewan;52150839]No, it really isn't. And I say this as a massive leftist. We need to give these people and their unpleasant, ignorant viewpoints the freedom to be aired so that we can shred them using logic, rationalism and compassion (something they lack). By not doing that you're adopting an anti-intellectual stance as surely as they are, and creating fertile soil for their ideals to propagate in.[/QUOTE] No amount of rational thought is going to sway these people's ideas. History has proven time and time again that they aren't going to listen or changes their minds. There are still people who think the world is flat, evolution is fake, and that [url=http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/15/empire-star-terrence-howards-math-theory-argues-that-1-x-1-2-seriously-5391577/]math is wrong[/url].

[QUOTE=Beetle179;52150908]Do you have any evidence of this beyond feel-good theorycrafting? Historically, we've let people spew ridiculous, hateful rhetoric and they've gotten large followings from it. Donald Trump, Piers Morgan, Alex Jones -- these people make fools of themselves repeatedly, continuously, in public, and yet they have massive cults of personality. I can't disagree with Berkley students trying to shutdown a speaker at their school. If they don't want to give a platform to someone with dangerous, hateful ideas, then they have no obligation to. The [I]nation[/I] has promised Ann Coulter her right to speech, but not the venue. Violence, of course, is completely unwarranted and inappropriate.' No amount of rational thought is going to sway these people's ideas. History has proven time and time again that they aren't going to listen or changes their minds. There are still people who think the world is flat, evolution is fake, and that [url=http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/15/empire-star-terrence-howards-math-theory-argues-that-1-x-1-2-seriously-5391577/]math is wrong[/url].[/QUOTE] This. An entirely spot-on post.

[QUOTE=Beetle179;52150908]Do you have any evidence of this beyond feel-good theorycrafting? Historically, we've let people spew ridiculous, hateful rhetoric and they've gotten large followings from it. Donald Trump, Piers Morgan, Alex Jones -- these people make fools of themselves repeatedly, continuously, in public, and yet they have massive cults of personality. I can't disagree with Berkley students trying to shutdown a speaker at their school. If they don't want to give a platform to someone with dangerous, hateful ideas, then they have no obligation to. The [I]nation[/I] has promised Ann Coulter her right to speech, but not the venue. Violence, of course, is completely unwarranted and inappropriate.' No amount of rational thought is going to sway these people's ideas. History has proven time and time again that they aren't going to listen or changes their minds. There are still people who think the world is flat, evolution is fake, and that [url=http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/15/empire-star-terrence-howards-math-theory-argues-that-1-x-1-2-seriously-5391577/]math is wrong[/url].[/QUOTE] Well when you got a big asshole in charge of the other side sometimes you can't choose sides. I'd like to see a third party come into being, but we fucked that up when we got Hilary nominated. We don't have the resources to do this, if we fight against our own kind the Republicans will eat us up. As obnoxious as some of these violent leftist are, I don't think we have much of a choice anymore.

[QUOTE=Luni;52150443]Any claim or belief that requires censorship to prop it up is already worthless... I forget who said that, but it still rings true. You can say that your beliefs are objectively correct, but that doesn't mean shit because we don't live in an objective world. You can shut down speakers who aren't ideologically pure enough for you, but at that point you can forget about convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you. The current climate of left-wing college "activism" isn't protest or outreach, it's just group masturbation.[/QUOTE] The world itself is pretty objective. It's just that people are so fallible it doesn't always appear that way, and so different you usually can't deal in absolutes. That's not to say you should limit speech beyond the absolute minimum you need to effectively stop people who intentionally cause harm, though. [editline]26th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Beetle179;52150908]Do you have any evidence of this beyond feel-good theorycrafting? [...] [...][/QUOTE] It works in most of Europe (though there's some limit on legal speech/freedom of expression here. I don't know whether all these people go beyond that, but you can be plenty hateful without breaking the law here). It's not so much about convincing the most extreme people as it is about debasing their argument so that they don't gain a large following, and stopping them from airing their more harmful ideas in a way that's broadly sanctioned by the population only. That said, it's imo very much necessary to draw a hard line against intolerance. You don't need to yield even a bit to have a reasonable argument about something, and compassion [I]really[/I] isn't appropriate in the face of intolerance. (re fruxodaily) Saying the other side 'lacks compassion' also veers dangerously near dehumanisation territory. You really don't want that stuff in politics because it legitimises violence. Adding almost any kind of qualifier here should fix that though. [editline]26th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=bitches;52148664]they'll turn on him[/QUOTE] From what I've seen, the groups that threaten violence don't particularly like him in the first place. I could be partially mistaken because I don't follow US politics that closely, though.

[QUOTE=Beetle179;52150908]Do you have any evidence of this beyond feel-good theorycrafting? Historically, we've let people spew ridiculous, hateful rhetoric and they've gotten large followings from it. Donald Trump, Piers Morgan, Alex Jones -- these people make fools of themselves repeatedly, continuously, in public, and yet they have massive cults of personality. I can't disagree with Berkley students trying to shutdown a speaker at their school. If they don't want to give a platform to someone with dangerous, hateful ideas, then they have no obligation to. The [I]nation[/I] has promised Ann Coulter her right to speech, but not the venue. Violence, of course, is completely unwarranted and inappropriate.' No amount of rational thought is going to sway these people's ideas. History has proven time and time again that they aren't going to listen or changes their minds. There are still people who think the world is flat, evolution is fake, and that [url=http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/15/empire-star-terrence-howards-math-theory-argues-that-1-x-1-2-seriously-5391577/]math is wrong[/url].[/QUOTE] What do you mean, "evidence"? You need evidence of the concept of debate having tangible effects on the world? If you want to talk about evidence lets talk about the reactionary rise in right wing politics as a response to leftist violence and absurdism. You don't get to decide what is and is not acceptable speech and shut out anyone you disagree with, just like Sanders said, it's an immediate sign of intellectual weakness. [editline]26th April 2017[/editline] It's amazing that all it takes is one electoral fuck-up to convince an entire generation of people that free speech is a meaningless principle that should be reduced to a strictly legal context. It's depressing that people actually think this way and feel that shutting people down for saying things you disagree with is acceptable in any way.

[QUOTE=srobins;52151083]What do you mean, "evidence"? You need evidence of the concept of debate having tangible effects on the world? If you want to talk about evidence lets talk about the reactionary rise in right wing politics as a response to leftist violence and absurdism. You don't get to decide what is and is not acceptable speech and shut out anyone you disagree with, just like Sanders said, it's an immediate sign of intellectual weakness.[/QUOTE] Do we actually have any direct evidence to suggest that a statistically significant part of the rise in reactionary right wing politics is a response to activists at Berkeley University and similar student actions? It seems to be mostly internet users on sites like 4chan and reddit who attribute their own shift in political views to university activists. If those internet communities were representative of the views of the entirety of the United States population (let alone the entire western hemisphere, considering the rise of right wing populism is happening in many countries such as the UK and France), then Ron Paul would've been made president back when he was really popular on those sites. The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect]False Consensus Effect[/url] is a well recognized psychological phenomenon and cognitive bias that may be having a particularly significant effect here. [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/11/its-not-just-trump-authoritarian-populism-is-rising-across-the-west-heres-why/?utm_term=.b56644e6fb2e]Based on [/url] [url=http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/02/europe-right-wing-nationalism-populist-revolt-trump-putin-524119.html]my readings[/url] [url=http://time.com/4075396/far-right-politics-rise-europe/]on the rise of[/url] [url=http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/]right wing populism[/url], the biggest reason behind it seems to be anger due to the loss of jobs from automaton and outsourcing, particularly when it comes to factory and mining jobs, as a consequence of greater globalization of the international economy as well as the perceived indifference of out-of-touch politicians on the issue. There's also a perception that jobs are being lost to immigrants and refugees and that the resources used to provide for them should be used to help locals instead who are in need of jobs and financial security.

I just don't see how it's a good idea to allow people like Ann Coulter to be able to use the victim card. I agree with Bernie on this.

[QUOTE=Beetle179;52150908]Do you have any evidence of this beyond feel-good theorycrafting? Historically, we've let people spew ridiculous, hateful rhetoric and they've gotten large followings from it. Donald Trump, Piers Morgan, Alex Jones -- these people make fools of themselves repeatedly, continuously, in public, and yet they have massive cults of personality. I can't disagree with Berkley students trying to shutdown a speaker at their school. If they don't want to give a platform to someone with dangerous, hateful ideas, then they have no obligation to. The [I]nation[/I] has promised Ann Coulter her right to speech, but not the venue. Violence, of course, is completely unwarranted and inappropriate.' [/QUOTE] The evidence lies in the fact that Trump was elected at all. Setting aside Media's 24/7 coverage of him, the air of silencing that existed during the election meant that there was a large population of people who wouldn't even try to voice their opinions publically because it would be 'shut down'. The sort of absolute delegitimization to the point of silencing is what causes people to go into hiding with their opinions until the time to vote comes around. You want to minimize people in a cult of personality? Well, then don't hide them away behind a locked door, because you can bet your ass they will resent you for it.

Take Milo for instance. Protests didn't stop him, they just gave him wider reach and sympathy because of the behavior of the protestors and the appearance of victimhood. What finally got Milo out of the picture was he wouldn't shut up and he started talking about fucking little kids. He kept talking until he said something stupid enough to convince everyone he was really a shitty person.

[QUOTE=Beetle179;52150908]I can't disagree with Berkley students trying to shutdown a speaker at their school. If they don't want to give a platform to someone with dangerous, hateful ideas, then they have no obligation to. The [I]nation[/I] has promised Ann Coulter her right to speech, but not the venue.[/QUOTE] Except with censorship you give them exactly what they want and justify their worldview. You can't afford to sit back and preach to the choir anymore, secure in the knowledge that you're on the Right Side of History(TM) and don't need to care what the Other Side thinks of you. That is one lesson that young Democrats need to learn, and they need to learn it [i]now.[/i] Shitting on people, censoring them, heaping abuse and bile on them will not make them change their minds. [QUOTE=Beetle179;52150908]No amount of rational thought is going to sway these people's ideas. History has proven time and time again that they aren't going to listen or changes their minds. There are still people who think the world is flat, evolution is fake, and that [url=http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/15/empire-star-terrence-howards-math-theory-argues-that-1-x-1-2-seriously-5391577/]math is wrong[/url].[/QUOTE] The Flat Earthers are fringe nutjobs or trolls and evolution is tied up with faith, which takes time to integrate new ideas -- but congratulations, you've proven that 0.00000031% of the population of the United States believes something crazy about math. This still does not prove your supposed point that The Other Side is unreachable, intractible and beyond saving and that therefore we should Shut Those Nasty Bigots Down. Threatening Ann Coulter's safety will not make her, or more importantly [b]the people who agree with her,[/b] change their minds. It will not prove to them that liberalism is a shining beacon -- it will simply give them more ammunition to say "those childish liberals can't handle XYZ" or "yet another liberal temper tantrum" and deflect anything you say when you try to talk about anything political with them. It will make them harder to reach for those of us who actually want to maintain some kind of dialogue and still want the chance to change minds. If you think that respectful dialogue won't do anything to change conservatives' minds, [b]censorship and violence[/b] will do even less, and as we saw last November 8th -- when the Fed turned red -- censorship and violence ain't working out for you. Screaming and raging on Twitter ain't working. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring those nasty white bigots ain't working. Gathering round to jerk off together in the luminous glow of the Right Side of History ain't working. It is still possible to talk to conservatives if you bother to take them seriously as human beings, and not as an amorphous mass of hateful bigots, and if you want to win the culture war that's what you're going to have to do. Fifteen years ago, I was a staunch conservative kid who thought GWB was a good president, America was the world police and Europe was a bunch of pansies, 9/11 justified Afghanistan and Iraq, get-tough sentencing worked, marijuana should stay illegal, socialism was bad and welfare made people lazy, racism was over, and gays/transexuals were icky. That's about all I can remember of my political beliefs at age 13. Now, I'm a moderate conservative with a complete or partial reversal on all of the above. I did not change my mind because some people on Twitter told me about my toxic masculinity or my privilege or how bigoted and evil I was, or because I saw Antifa starting fistfights, or because some entitled snots at UC Berkeley blocked white people from going to class or screamed about MICROAGGRESSIONS. I changed it because I was exposed, over a decade and a half, to a lot of friends I respected who happened to disagree with me on some political and social issues and were happy to explain their beliefs and why they thought they were right. That is how you effect real change. Not by saying "OH THEY'LL NEVER LISTEN." Not by throwing up your hands and writing off half the population of the United States -- who, I can tell you, are a lot more kind, reasonable and charitable than you think they are, as long as you haven't made them defensive and entrenched them in their beliefs by ridiculing them. That's a bullshit cop-out.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52151275]Take Milo for instance. Protests didn't stop him, they just gave him wider reach and sympathy because of the behavior of the protestors and the appearance of victimhood. What finally got Milo out of the picture was he wouldn't shut up and he started talking about fucking little kids. He kept talking until he said something stupid enough to convince everyone he was really a shitty person.[/QUOTE] He went from an audience of a few hundred people to a primetime interview on the most watched show of the most watched news network in America. People like Milo and Coulter exist largely out of the idea that they, their politics, and by extension their audience are victims. Which is laughable, but it's an idea that starts to gain traction when you threaten to beat people up and light shit on fire because they are coming to your university to talk to a room full of people who simply want their biases and world views confirmed by con artists. Just let the people speak, then use your first amendment rights to explain how fucking dumb they are.

[QUOTE=Luni;52151281]I did not change my mind because some people on Twitter told me about my toxic masculinity or my privilege or how bigoted and evil I was, or because I saw Antifa starting fistfights, or because some entitled snots at UC Berkeley blocked white people from going to class or screamed about MICROAGGRESSIONS. I changed it because I was exposed, over a decade and a half, to a lot of friends I respected who happened to disagree with me on some political and social issues and were happy to explain their beliefs and why they thought they were right. That is how you effect real change. Not by saying "OH THEY'LL NEVER LISTEN." Not by throwing up your hands and writing off half the population of the United States -- who, I can tell you, are a lot more kind, reasonable and charitable than you think they are, as long as you haven't made them defensive and entrenched them in their beliefs by ridiculing them. That's a bullshit cop-out.[/QUOTE] Great post overall but this snippet specifically is exceptionally true. Be somebody that people want to agree with and make your arguments logically and rationally and you might actually win people over. I've reconsidered a lot of my own "hard stances" because a friend or colleague or family member that I really respected disagreed with me [I]respectfully[/I]. If you take all the egotistical, gladiatorial bullshit out of political conversations people are way more receptive to what you're saying and can, in fact, change their minds. Refusing to speak to them, beating them up or calling them names is just going to strengthen their existing beliefs, it's basic psychology.