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

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

45 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=srobins;52151319]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.[/QUOTE] the second part is to make sure you only have these conversations on facebook, because the internet is [url=https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mHzvgPv/2/66bff040/O/i-mHzvgPv.jpg]the best place to resolve disagreements[/url]

[QUOTE=bitches;52148664]they'll turn on him[/QUOTE] They already have. Meanwhile he'll continue to speak his minds and his message for as long as he is able. It probably won't be within his lifetime, but somewhere, somewhen people will realize he was right all along.

e: On a more serious note, when considering the image of the "unreasonable conservative" you have to consider how much is their [b]actual, heart-felt beliefs[/b], and how much is simply a [b]reaction[/b] because someone/something is putting them on the defensive. I was recently invited to a Discord full of young progressive leftists all enthusiastically agreeing with each other how stupid and evil conservatives were, and how America was the worst country in the world. Now, I can tell you right now that as a moderate conservative I [i]fucking despise[/i] the Republican Party as a gang of liars and thieves deep in corporate pockets, I'm not proud of America or her government or even particularly her people -- but at that moment, around those people, was I going to admit that? [b]Fuck no,[/b] I could feel myself wanting to register Republican, get a stars-and-stripes tanktop and get back to church while driving a Ford F-150. I actually agreed with them on a lot of ground, like immigration, CJ/prison/healthcare/insurance reform, welfare, race relations, education... but I wasn't listening to them anymore because they put me on the defensive, because they were gleefully trashing my country and my people. At that moment, [b]I[/b], a moderate whose beliefs have been slowly evolving for years, was now an "unreasonable conservative" -- because of bloody-minded defensiveness, and nothing more. Conversely, I know a number of young Trump supporters who crowed triumphantly about his victory and will talk endlessly about how he's such a great leader and the liberals are destroying America and we need THE WALL or to bomb the Middle East or whatever -- and every second I'm around them I feel myself turning into an atheistic multi-culti socialist (I'm struggling to find liberal positions I don't already agree with at least on some level lmao, so bear with me here). I agree with them on [i]some[/i] things, but they act so fucking obnoxious about their conservative beliefs that I'm not going to admit I could possibly have anything in common. That's how it starts, until everyone's on the defensive, everyone is posturing, and everyone is fighting strawmen, because [b]they're all putting up defensive facades, not what they actually believe,[/b] and fighting the facades and caricatures on The Other Team, and you can't communicate across because both sides are intentionally not listening to the other. That is why respectful, reasoned dialogue is important (and I'm not saying you have to do the Fox News fair-and-balanced shit where you say 'oh well maybe [horrific belief about poor people] has some merit, but...' -- just don't shit all over them for being conservative): because it cuts through these defensive facades that people put up, and you can actually reach the real person, and not the official caricature of their political team. Until you've done that, you don't get to talk about how conservatives are a "lost cause." e: fuck my [i]mergeeee[/i]

[QUOTE=Govna;52150990]This. An entirely spot-on post.[/QUOTE] Except it ignores the fact a public funded university does have to follow certain stipulations like accommodating free speech. Such as allowing assembly for all different groups on public property that is seen as a public forum.

Before I start -- I understand, firsthand, the "defensive silence" you're talking about. I [I]know[/I] that not everybody will agree with me, so I try not to make any assumptions in discussing politics with the people I know. There are people I know [I]dis[/I]agree with me and I've seen the silence you're talking about, I've [I]been[/I] the silent person -- at family get-togethers with family members whose views don't quite line up with our own.. That's a meme for a reason, I think a lot of us have been there. Anyway: [QUOTE=Luni;52151281]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] I'm not advocating censorship. [strike]I'll restate what I said here again: Berkley has no obligation to be the organization to give the [I]platform[/I] for Ann Coulter to speak her ideas.[/strike] (see edit) I can expand on this more but I'd rather address the other points you're making right now. [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.[/quote] Are they fringe nutjobs? (For the record, I would agree they are -- but) A year ago we were saying that people bought into the ideas Donald Trump was proposing. And now he's the president of the USA. And in calling them "fringe nutjobs", are you not doing exactly what you're saying [I]not[/I] to do? Shit on them, etc? What makes these ideas any different from racist ideas, misogynistic ideas? The article about Terrence Howard isn't the purpose of my argument and you're not "gotcha"'ing me in any way -- it's to point out that some people have such radically... ridiculous ideas and no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, they'll stay entrenched. This is a grown man who thinks 1x1 = 2, when a child in the 1st grade could tell you otherwise. He's had several dozen years for people to educate him that that isn't true, but he hasn't learned, and I think that is much more common than you're claiming. More on the "unreachable" element in a second [quote]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.[/quote] I absolutely agree, as I said already. [quote]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.[/quote] Again, I agree that censorship and violence are only tools for the "opposite side". But I don't see how they were used in the prior election. Donald Trump and his ideas were not censored, they were broadcast on every news network across the nation. In fact, remember when [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/all-three-networks-ignored-bernie-sanders-speech-tuesday-night-promising-trump-would-be-speaking-soon_us_56e8bad1e4b0860f99daec81]Bernie was censored by major news platforms[/url], which instead showed an empty podium and "standby for Donald Trump"? [quote]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.[/quote] Then you're fortunate (well, I would say so, as a member of "your side" (presumably)). But not everybody has the community that you did, the sort of social circles -- read: people who are [I]personally connected to you[/I] -- that can influence change in your beliefs. I want to emphasize that -- I don't think people are "unreachable", wherever they lie on the political spectrum. But I don't think anyone is being swayed by what they see on TV or hear in speeches, I think it's gradual change from the people they surround themselves with, having genuine conversations with them. [quote]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] You've sounded awfully accusatory throughout your post and I want to address that. You took a few words I said about people being entrenched in their ideas and turned that into me being the guy who goes around ridiculing ideas I disagree with and making people the "silently defensive" type. Listen. I've talked to people on the "opposite" side plenty of times. I've had real, legitimate conversations with close conservative friends about political subjects. I've politely, and appropriately, informed people of social missteps -- racism, transphobia, that kind of thing. I've navigated these situations enough times to know how to let people say what they're really thinking without shutting them down, I've let people disagree with me and explain why. I know people are kind, reasonable, and charitable on a personal level (most of the time) -- you don't need to tell me that, and you don't need to assume yourself that [I]I'm[/I] not taking care of that, that [I]I'm[/I] the one who needs to be giving people the benefit of the doubt, when [I]you're[/I] pulling exactly the same things on me that would incite a "silent defense" response. You're not making an attempt to "reach the real person" as you said in your second post. You're assigning me a caricature that I don't conform to. [editline]a[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52151467]Except it ignores the fact a public funded university does have to follow certain stipulations like accommodating free speech. Such as allowing assembly for all different groups on public property that is seen as a public forum.[/QUOTE] This is a mistake on my part, I'd forgotten that Berkley is a public university, although I'd still argue they have no obligation to host anyone. An institution for education should not have to host a political figure.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52151467]Except it ignores the fact a public funded university does have to follow certain stipulations like accommodating free speech. Such as allowing assembly for all different groups on public property that is seen as a public forum.[/QUOTE] No they don't. Publicly funded or privately, there's these things called speech codes that are more often than not enforced by universities. If you're in violation, then you're in violation-- plain and simple. That isn't an attack on free speech. Academic institutions (in theory) serve to educate. The United States is a large country in terms of population with a lot of ethnic, religious, etc. diversity. Speech codes naturally arise from this in an attempt to minimize the amount of drama that ensues from all of this diversity and the shitload of people who are stuck living around each other on a regular basis. Assuming they can't nab you on violating these codes and policies, they're more than free to go after you on technicalities concerning your behavior, the welfare of their students and faculty, etc. and prevent you from showing up and doing whatever it is that you're there to do. Failing that (which is unusual, especially when it comes to more controversial figures), the students can always take matters into their own hands. Now granted you have some universities that get ridiculous with what their speech codes include and what augmentative policies they adopt, but more often than not that's because they're trying to cover their own asses-- not because they're actually pushing an agenda. Schools are content for the most part to operate like businesses, basically the way everything else does in the United States. While politics enters into this, money is the bottom line. Money speaks the same language regardless of what side a person dresses to. The more smoothly things run, the easier it is to make (and continue to make) money. The "free speech is under attack" argument is just used by conservatives to drum up false controversy and outrage where it's nonsensical to do so. Speech codes and policies aren't actually problematic. Again, you'll have the odd school that decides it's time to go overboard, but most are sensible enough to realize that attracting too much attention is a bad thing... and that verbal ~purity~ doesn't mean lasting or effective social change in the case of where there is actually a political motivation behind them.

[QUOTE=Govna;52151578]No they don't. Publicly funded or privately, there's these things called speech codes that are more often than not enforced by universities. If you're in violation, then you're in violation-- plain and simple. That isn't an attack on free speech. Academic institutions (in theory) serve to educate. The United States is a large country in terms of population with a lot of ethnic, religious, etc. diversity. Speech codes naturally arise from this in an attempt to minimize the amount of drama that ensues from all of this diversity and the shitload of people who are stuck living around each other on a regular basis. Assuming they can't nab you on violating these codes and policies, they're more than free to go after you on technicalities concerning your behavior, the welfare of their students and faculty, etc. and prevent you from showing up and doing whatever it is that you're there to do. Failing that (which is unusual, especially when it comes to more controversial figures), the students can always take matters into their own hands. Now granted you have some universities that get ridiculous with what their speech codes include and what augmentative policies they adopt, but more often than not that's because they're trying to cover their own asses-- not because they're actually pushing an agenda. Schools are content for the most part to operate like businesses, basically the way everything else does in the United States. While politics enters into this, money is the bottom line. Money speaks the same language regardless of what side a person dresses to. The more smoothly things run, the easier it is to make (and continue to make) money. The "free speech is under attack" argument is just used by conservatives to drum up false controversy and outrage where it's nonsensical to do so. Speech codes and policies aren't actually problematic. Again, you'll have the odd school that decides it's time to go overboard, but most are sensible enough to realize that attracting too much attention is a bad thing... and that verbal ~purity~ doesn't mean lasting or effective social change in the case of where there is actually a political motivation behind them.[/QUOTE] Personally, I don't find anything unreasonable in principle about different privately owned institutions having their own codes of conduct when it comes to people operating on the university grounds. It's just like how internet forums have their own rules or how those protesters got kicked out of a Trump rally for protesting. Universities, like internet forums or political rallies, aren't public spaces, they're privately owned. As such, while they generally are spaces designed for public discourse, it's also quite reasonable that they have rules and speech codes to set their own standards for discussion just like any public forum has, in order to maintain a certain level of useful discussion. This may include kicking people out if they promote political rhetoric that is needlessly discriminatory towards one group or another. Ultimately, it's up to each respective institution to decide what that standard of conduct should be, same as any privately owned forum such as an internet forum. Think of it this way, if you invited me to a house party you were holding and then I showed up and immediately started getting all political and ranting about how god hates the gays or something and making all of your guests uncomfortable, wouldn't be reasonable if you asked me to leave? Would it make sense for me to then start ranting about how you were taking away my freedom of speech because you weren't letting me annoy all of your guests at your house party? I wouldn't think so, because it's your house, not a public demonstration space. I think the confusion comes from the weird position of universities being both somewhat a public and private space, that's why I made the comparison to an internet forum. Both of these spaces are ostensibly designed for public discourse, but in both cases each one needs to set rules and a code of conduct. Otherwise, you either end up with no rules and therefore no useful discussion taking place because everyone is shit posting and insulting each other, or the rules are too restrictive and the place becomes an unintentional echo chamber because the only people who can be vocal and avoid breaking the rules are those with a specific political viewpoint. In neither case is the legal right of freedom of speech being questioned, rather it's a matter of subjectively deciding what level of rules brings about the most useful discussion.

[URL="https://archive.is/VJKNF"]https://archive.is/VJKNF[/URL] And Salon is suddenly anti Bernie now despite treating him as Jesus v2 during the primaries

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52152355][URL="https://archive.is/VJKNF"]https://archive.is/VJKNF[/URL] And Salon is suddenly anti Bernie now despite treating him as Jesus v2 during the primaries[/QUOTE] Lol, yeah, how dare he try to actually win an election instead of alienating a good portion of the electorate in the states that Hillary lost, that will work SO well. I'd have a good laugh if democrats/left continue to not learn any lessons from this election and end up handing the GOP an election that they shouldn't win by any right at all, well I would laugh if it wasn't so damn sad.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52152355][URL="https://archive.is/VJKNF"]https://archive.is/VJKNF[/URL] And Salon is suddenly anti Bernie now despite treating him as Jesus v2 during the primaries[/QUOTE] From that article, they are pulling a no true scotsman for anyone who isn't pro-choice, and railing him because he doesn't think abortion should be used as the progressive litmus test.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52152355][URL]https://archive.is/VJKNF[/URL] And Salon is suddenly anti Bernie now despite treating him as Jesus v2 during the primaries[/QUOTE] Despite slightly seeing it as hypocritical on both ends in not supporting a state level candidate based on a purity test, I would agree that it's best to not have a heavy purity test in either end so long as the candidate is overall decent and won't make foolish policies based on personal belief such as Pro-life.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52152355][URL="https://archive.is/VJKNF"]https://archive.is/VJKNF[/URL] And Salon is suddenly anti Bernie now despite treating him as Jesus v2 during the primaries[/QUOTE] When I look for page who by way is still exist, A majority of people in comments aren't buying this propaganda smear ether and claim she (Anna March) was pro-Bernie herself before this. But beside that, Bernie do this, Is for nation's pro-speech cause is respecting first amendment.

[QUOTE=Beetle179;52151538]Are they fringe nutjobs? (For the record, I would agree they are -- but) A year ago we were saying that people bought into the ideas Donald Trump was proposing. And now he's the president of the USA. And in calling them "fringe nutjobs", are you not doing exactly what you're saying [I]not[/I] to do? Shit on them, etc? What makes these ideas any different from racist ideas, misogynistic ideas?[/QUOTE] That's not really comparable -- only 20% of Americans voted for Trump, and many of them voted for him because the Democrats fielded their own least-popular candidate in history. Re: "fringe nutjobs," I'm tailoring my speech here, because flat-earthers are a ridiculous minority and terribly unlikely to visit Facepunch. [QUOTE=Beetle179;52151538]The article about Terrence Howard isn't the purpose of my argument and you're not "gotcha"'ing me in any way -- it's to point out that some people have such radically... ridiculous ideas and no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, they'll stay entrenched. This is a grown man who thinks 1x1 = 2, when a child in the 1st grade could tell you otherwise. He's had several dozen years for people to educate him that that isn't true, but he hasn't learned, and I think that is much more common than you're claiming.[/QUOTE] I'll still say again that a single anecdote doesn't say much. Are there people like that? Sure, but until there are statistics about how many people wholeheartedly and stubbornly believe things that fly in the face of established knowledge, I don't think it's worth bringing up, especially if you're trying to argue that large portions of the American public will never change their minds and should therefore be written off and shut out. [QUOTE=Beetle179;52151538]You've sounded awfully accusatory throughout your post and I want to address that. You took a few words I said about people being entrenched in their ideas and turned that into me being the guy who goes around ridiculing ideas I disagree with and making people the "silently defensive" type. Listen. I've talked to people on the "opposite" side plenty of times. I've had real, legitimate conversations with close conservative friends about political subjects. I've politely, and appropriately, informed people of social missteps -- racism, transphobia, that kind of thing. I've navigated these situations enough times to know how to let people say what they're really thinking without shutting them down, I've let people disagree with me and explain why. I know people are kind, reasonable, and charitable on a personal level (most of the time) -- you don't need to tell me that, and you don't need to assume yourself that [I]I'm[/I] not taking care of that, that [I]I'm[/I] the one who needs to be giving people the benefit of the doubt, when [I]you're[/I] pulling exactly the same things on me that would incite a "silent defense" response. You're not making an attempt to "reach the real person" as you said in your second post. You're assigning me a caricature that I don't conform to.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. I'm not saying you're one of those hysterical young progressives who goes around ridiculing conservatives, only that you're supporting the mindset they use to justify their bad behavior and their belief in silencing anyone who holds views they deem harmful. You're saying conflicting things, though -- you say you agree that we should still try to talk to conservatives: [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] But in your original post, you say they'll never change their minds (and thus implicitly that it's not worth talking to them): [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 math is wrong.[/QUOTE] In your reply, you say: [QUOTE]I'm not advocating censorship. [...] Again, I agree that censorship and violence are only tools for the "opposite side".[/QUOTE] But you also say: [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I'll restate what I said here again: Berkley has no obligation to be the organization to give the [I]platform[/I] for Ann Coulter to speak her ideas.[/QUOTE] How am I supposed to interpret your original post, if not as implicit support of "no platform" censorship (you even mention 'not giving them a platform') which involves writing off conservatives and not allowing them to be heard? You keep saying you don't agree with censorship, yet in the same breath you say "no platform" and that you can't fault people for shutting conservatives with 'dangerous ideas' out of public discourse -- could you clarify what you're actually advocating?

I can see why political violence becomes an option for people. The candidate that lost the popular election somehow became president, and the Electoral College, the institution we've been taught since we were kids is around to prevent incompetent people like Trump and his entire admin from getting into office didn't do it's job (since the Electoral college is just as partisan as congress). Going through "legitimate" channels of political action didn't work, so all it has done is leave "illegitimate" channels for people to act in.

[QUOTE=Luni;52151430]e: On a more serious note, when considering the image of the "unreasonable conservative" you have to consider how much is their [b]actual, heart-felt beliefs[/b], and how much is simply a [b]reaction[/b] because someone/something is putting them on the defensive.[/QUOTE] People need to get over their petty emotions. Politics aren't a game. The results of these elections define the future of the country; they shape every single person's life in, and sometimes outside of, the country in so many ways. Both sides have toxic supporters, but those people are meaningless. All that matters are the officials of the party and the actual people one is voting into office. If a party or candidate endorses those toxic supporters, then that matters because it is a reflection on the views of the party or candidate. But toxic fuckwits simply existing is meaningless. If a person isn't mature enough to push past their emotional response when someone who supports a party (but importantly does not represent it nor the candidates of that party running for office) says something mean, they shouldn't be voting in the first place.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52154614] Going through "legitimate" channels of political action didn't work, so all it has done is leave "illegitimate" channels for people to act in.[/QUOTE] This is incorrect. You're just upset your flavor of crony capitalist lost to a crony capitalistic that isn't your preferred flavor. You have many options. You could try and do what Govna advised. Which is create outreach programs. Non profits. Food banks. Places to stay. Help folks with their rent. Make mutual needs networks best you can within capitalism. Actually help folks. Do something positive. The reason Clinton lost is she forgot about swing voters or insulted them. This is a portion of the voting population which hate both left and right in equal parts. What they want is jobs, their liberties as described by the constitution back, they want an end to the surveillance state, they want an end to senseless wars and they want wall street out of Washington. They want to end corporate corruption and power. Is that reaaaally so much to ask for?

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.