Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Ann Coulter scared out of Canadian Capital UniversityFollow

#27 Mar 24 2010 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Coulter didn't have union thugs willing bite off the fingers of anyone who shouted her down.

That's because she's anti-organized labor.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Mar 24 2010 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Coulter didn't have union thugs willing bite off the fingers of anyone who shouted her down.

That's because she's anti-organized labor.


Organ-ized labor? Get it?



____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#29 Mar 24 2010 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Oh wah, Ann Coulter. She has the right to vent her spleen, and so do they.
#30 Mar 24 2010 at 4:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When the primary difference between what is labeled free speech and hate speech is whether or not you agree with the politics of the speaker, there's a problem with equality in your social system. A big problem.

From the reports I've read, I didn't see anything about people calling Coulter by sexist, racist or homophobic (heterophobic?) epitaphs. Mainly just people saying she should go home. It says a fire alarm was pulled which, if done intentionally, I certainly don't condone.


Irrelevant. The whole thing happened because a faculty member labeled her opinions "hate speech". The angry mob shutting down the event is just icing on the cake here.

Quote:
So, no, I don't think the sole difference here is the politics of the speaker.


It's the primary difference in this case though, isn't it? Are you suggesting that if a far left socialist had been scheduled to speak, there would have been a similar reaction no matter how controversial the speech itself?


What's most sad is that these students presumably went to school to learn and to be exposed to ideas beyond those they hold now. Regardless of what you think of Coulter or her opinions, the idea that students would take such an anti-educational position speaks volumes about the degree of indoctrination into an assumed 'right and wrong' when it comes to politics and discussion. It's one thing to disagree. It's one thing to refuse to listen. But these kids went beyond that to refusing to allow anyone else to listen or even choose to agree or disagree.


Quote:
But I'm really proud of you for being able to recall rote bits of high school literature. Keep up the good work.


I first read Animal Farm in grade school Joph. And it was never assigned to me at any level. Some of us educate ourselves beyond what others require of us.

Edited, Mar 24th 2010 3:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Mar 24 2010 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Are you suggesting that if a far left socialist had been scheduled to speak, there would have been a similar reaction no matter how controversial the speech itself?


Since slightly left of center speakers have been shouted down, sure.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#32 Mar 24 2010 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
The whole thing happened because a faculty member labeled her opinions "hate speech".


Bull. You think all those students showed up because a VP said something in a private letter, that Coulter then published? Yeah, CLEARLY it was the VP's fault. I've been at a college (as a student or an employee) for 6 years, and I still can't tell you who the VPs are. The kids didn't care that their VP warned her that hate speech is against Canadian law... they dislike Coulter because she incites hate as a selling point, or because they heard she's bad from their parents, or they wanted to see a protest. That's the reason for the crowd, not the administration's private messages.

Perhaps you've been out of college for too long to understand how students think?
#33 Mar 24 2010 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
Are you suggesting that if a far left socialist had been scheduled to speak, there would have been a similar reaction no matter how controversial the speech itself?
Yes. We're not terribly fond of extremists up here.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#34 Mar 24 2010 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
The irony, of course, is that Ms. Coulter is the one crying about "hate speech" against her. She's filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
#35 Mar 24 2010 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
I don't like seeing anyone shouted down and silenced.


Generally I am in agreement. But who decides that it's Coulter's turn to speak at the University at that time, rather than the students, the dean, or a wandering madman? Oh, wait, that last one IS Coulter. But I digress. It's not as if Coulter has no way to communicate her views in general - what's that's been taken from her is her privileged position to be heard over a thousand voices in this one place. Considering that the only voices she is talking over are those that have 'agreed' to come and listen to her (and part of that agreement is silencing) their own voices for the duration, of course) this wouldn't ordinarily be enough, but I think it's a permissible way to protest the low quality (from the students' point of view) speakers the University is bringing in, if it's a serious problem for them (personally, I think the things Coulter says are insane - if that was the consistent standard of quality I would certainly complain, probably by mildly harassing whoever was in charge of it), given the precise nature of the relationship between student and University. It shows disrespect for protocol, of course, but not everything deserves respecting at all times.

I don't endorse this but I'm not going to condemn it either.
#36 Mar 24 2010 at 5:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The whole thing happened because a faculty member labeled her opinions "hate speech".


Bull. You think all those students showed up because a VP said something in a private letter, that Coulter then published? Yeah, CLEARLY it was the VP's fault. I've been at a college (as a student or an employee) for 6 years, and I still can't tell you who the VPs are. The kids didn't care that their VP warned her that hate speech is against Canadian law...


*cough*

Quote:

A protest organizer, international studies student Mike Fancie, said he was pleased they were able to stop Coulter from speaking.

"What Ann Coulter is practicing is not free speech, it's hate speech," he said. "She's targeted the Jews, she's targeted the Muslims, she's targeted Canadians, homosexuals, women, almost everybody you could imagine."


Want to rethink or rephrase that maybe?

Quote:
they dislike Coulter because she incites hate as a selling point, or because they heard she's bad from their parents, or they wanted to see a protest. That's the reason for the crowd, not the administration's private messages.


I'm not making any claim to some kind of intent to make people think that Coulter's speech was hate speech on the part of the VP. I think you misunderstand me. I'm merely pointing to the hypocrisy of someone using the a principle of free speech (the protest) with the specific intent of shutting down someone else's speech, and justifying it because that speech isn't "free" speech, but is "hate" speech.

It's all about the label, isn't it?

Quote:
Perhaps you've been out of college for too long to understand how students think?


Oh. I'm sure that most of them are just drones dancing to whatever beat the organizers put them to. Some of them out of passion. Some just out of boredom or interest in doing something "cool". A cousin of mine spent a year at San Fransisco University. She's a very artistic person and thought it would be a great experience. She left after a year. Her reason? She couldn't stand the constant protests. Every single day, three or four times a day, the quad outside her dorm was full of students chanting something.

She laughed about it because if you asked them why they were doing it, every single one would talk about free speech, or being an individual, standing up for rights, and expressing their opinion. But after watching hundreds of these things organized over the course of a year, she realized that it's just training and indoctrination. The only thing missing were the uniforms and goosestep marches. The students were just being used. She couldn't figure out how they couldn't see it...

Same deal here. It's the irony that I see. The irony of students using free speech to protest free speech. Of course, not all speech is equally free, now is it?

Edited, Mar 24th 2010 4:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Mar 24 2010 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Generally I am in agreement. But who decides that it's Coulter's turn to speak at the University at that time, rather than the students, the dean, or a wandering madman?


She was invited to speak by the university. She did not approach them. They approached her. Presumably, knowing full well who she was and what ideas she expresses.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Mar 24 2010 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Irrelevant. The whole thing happened because a faculty member labeled her opinions "hate speech".

After she insulted Muslim students, saying they should take a camel or a flying carpet to school? I'm not seeing the problem here with saying Coulter engaged in hate speech after she, you know, engaged in hate speech.

Quote:
It's the primary difference in this case though, isn't it? Are you suggesting that if a far left socialist had been scheduled to speak, there would have been a similar reaction no matter how controversial the speech itself?

Beats me. Are you really basing your entire argument off of some imaginary world where this is happening? Pretend socialist speakers who insult the Christian students and then go on to give speeches? I should base my reaction off those pretend people? Because I think it'd be more fruitful to talk about the real world where Coulter insulted Muslims, went to a speech, encountered a bunch of students saying she should go home and the speech being canceled.

Quote:
I first read Animal Farm in grade school Joph. And it was never assigned to me at any level. Some of us educate ourselves beyond what others require of us.

Oh, God Gbaji. You have no idea how impressed I am that you read a book that probably every single other person on the forum has read! Really! And you read it in grade school you say? WOW! You should tell us some more about this. Because I bet no one else here has stories about how they went above and beyond the standard when they were in school.

Grade school, you say. Golly!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Mar 24 2010 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Generally I am in agreement. But who decides that it's Coulter's turn to speak at the University at that time, rather than the students, the dean, or a wandering madman?


She was invited to speak by the university. She did not approach them. They approached her. Presumably, knowing full well who she was and what ideas she expresses.


So, did you stop reading there, or...?

To clarify, yes, that was the point which I was building on.
#40 Mar 24 2010 at 6:08 PM Rating: Good
Maybe these students watched the teabaggers at the town hall meetings, and thought that was how Americans want to be treated...
#41 Mar 24 2010 at 6:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
After she insulted Muslim students, saying they should take a camel or a flying carpet to school? I'm not seeing the problem here with saying Coulter engaged in hate speech after she, you know, engaged in hate speech.


A Muslim student made a joke about how he'd have to take a flying carpet instead of a plane, but that he didn't have one, and she joked back that he could ride a camel.

Quote:
Quote:
It's the primary difference in this case though, isn't it? Are you suggesting that if a far left socialist had been scheduled to speak, there would have been a similar reaction no matter how controversial the speech itself?

Beats me. Are you really basing your entire argument off of some imaginary world where this is happening?


I'm 99.99999% sure that if a socialist speaker was treated that way, you'd have posted about it. Have you posted such a thing? Read about it on any of the numerous far left blogs you read? Anything?

Quote:
Pretend socialist speakers who insult the Christian students and then go on to give speeches? I should base my reaction off those pretend people?


Don't be coy Joph. We all know that the ratio of conservative to liberal speakers at universities is something like 1 to 100. And since when is "not insulting anyone" a pre-requisite of free speech?


My point is the inconsistency with which speech is determined to be "free". I thought you'd figured that out by now...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Mar 24 2010 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
I'm 99.99999% sure that if a socialist speaker was treated that way, you'd have posted about it.
Taliban Jack gets shouted down all over the place.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#43 Mar 24 2010 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
My point is the inconsistency with which speech is determined to be "free". I thought you'd figured that out by now...

But there is no "inconsistency" except in your imaginary scenarios. Find me examples of these people cheering the Christian-hating socialist extremist speakers and we might have something to start with. You saying you're "99.99999999%" sure of something doesn't amount to a wet shit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Mar 24 2010 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Generally I am in agreement. But who decides that it's Coulter's turn to speak at the University at that time, rather than the students, the dean, or a wandering madman?


She was invited to speak by the university. She did not approach them. They approached her. Presumably, knowing full well who she was and what ideas she expresses.


So, did you stop reading there, or...?


No. Just clarifying that for those who might not know the specifics. You kinda left that bit hanging as though there was some unusual and mysterious authoritarian force which magically required that Coulter speak at that particular school at that particular time or something.


Quote:
To clarify, yes, that was the point which I was building on.


Sure. And I largely agree with you, except that I will condemn them. They went beyond expressing their opinion to preventing the expression of someone else's. If they wanted to protest, fine. If they wanted to make sure everyone knew that they didn't like Coulter and what she had to say. Great! But the quote I provided earlier (from the linked article I believe) shows that at least one of the protest organizers had the specific purpose of stopping Coulter from speaking at all.


Hence, the irony. All speech should be "free". Not just the speech we like, or that doesn't offend us, or that expresses things that help us politically, or financially, or in some other way. I personally think the invention of the term "hate speech" came about purely to allow those who want to infringe on speech to do so successfully by first labeling the speech they oppose in a way designed to get people to agree with them. There has certainly never been any other consistent use of the term in public discourse.


That's why I tossed out the Animal Farm quote at the beginning. We've gone past the creation of labels by which we separate different types of speech, and have now moved to the point of using those labels to justify actions which infringe the very principles we're supposed to hold in high regard. Despite Joph's mocking of the book reference (which is interesting by itself from a psychological perspective), it's obvious that a whole lot of people don't really "get" it. The book was about the process of turning ideals into oppression. A process which is seen far far more in the actions of the students in this case, than in the words of Ann Coulter.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Mar 24 2010 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My point is the inconsistency with which speech is determined to be "free". I thought you'd figured that out by now...

But there is no "inconsistency" except in your imaginary scenarios. Find me examples of these people cheering the Christian-hating socialist extremist speakers and we might have something to start with. You saying you're "99.99999999%" sure of something doesn't amount to a wet shit.


Strawman.

The inconsistency is the students themselves justifying an act of free speech (a protest) in the cause of preventing free speech.

I've only explained this to you about three times already Joph. The issue with regard to treatment of some hypothetical socialist speaker is a completely different inconsistency, but is not necessary to the point I'm making.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Mar 24 2010 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The inconsistency is the students themselves justifying an act of free speech (a protest) in the cause of preventing free speech.

But she does have free speech. She's not being arrested. Or shot. Or threatened with violence.

You're under some delusion that "free speech" includes being given a clear platform to conduct it any time you want without consequences. Hell, I'm not even cheering the students. But you're acting like those dips who'd claim the Dixie Chicks were having their "free speech" violated when radio stations stopped playing their albums and people would smash up their CDs.
Quote:
I've only explained this to you about three times already Joph.

And been wrong three for three. Good for you. You said that the difference between free speech and hate speech depend son whether or not you agree with the politics of the speaker. You've utterly failed to make this point except to say "You know it's true!".

Edited, Mar 24th 2010 7:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Mar 24 2010 at 6:38 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Ann Coulter has no goddamn idea what constitutes hate speech.
#48 Mar 24 2010 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Sure. And I largely agree with you, except that I will condemn them. They went beyond expressing their opinion to preventing the expression of someone else's. If they wanted to protest, fine. If they wanted to make sure everyone knew that they didn't like Coulter and what she had to say. Great! But the quote I provided earlier (from the linked article I believe) shows that at least one of the protest organizers had the specific purpose of stopping Coulter from speaking at all.

Hence, the irony. All speech should be "free". Not just the speech we like, or that doesn't offend us, or that expresses things that help us politically, or financially, or in some other way. I personally think the invention of the term "hate speech" came about purely to allow those who want to infringe on speech to do so successfully by first labeling the speech they oppose in a way designed to get people to agree with them. There has certainly never been any other consistent use of the term in public discourse.


But they're not denying her free speech, just her platform in the University. The downside is not denying free speech but being disrespectful to the University in the way they are protesting crap speakers like Coulter being sent there - by stopping her from speaking. But, as I said, if it's a serious issue for them (serious enough to excuse or warrant it) I won't object.
#49 Mar 24 2010 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The inconsistency is the students themselves justifying an act of free speech (a protest) in the cause of preventing free speech.

But she does have free speech. She's not being arrested. Or shot. Or threatened with violence.


Well, the cops apparently thought she was, but whatever...

Quote:
You're under some delusion that "free speech" includes being given a clear platform to conduct it any time you want without consequences.


No. I'm not. She was invited Joph. It's not just her speech that is at issue. It's also the speech of the university, whatever faculty invited her, and the students who wished to hear what she had to say. They purchased the platform. They invited the speaker. It was their "right" to do that which was infringed. She's just a piece of the puzzle here.

You also don't have the right to take away someone else's speech, do you? Yet that's exactly what happened here, under the guise of free speech. Hence, the irony...

Quote:
Hell, I'm not even cheering the students. But you're acting like those dips who'd claim the Dixie Chicks were having their "free speech" violated when radio stations stopped playing their albums and people would smash up their CDs.


Er? It's the radio stations dime to choose what to play. It's the people who paid to buy those CD's who choose to smash them. It's the people's free choices as to whether they buy their CD's in the future. I'm not sure how you can equate this Joph.

A better analogy would be if someone ran into my record store and smashed up my copies of the Dixie Chicks because they didn't like what they said. Or if they hung around the store protesting the fact that I was selling the Dixie Chick's CD's and threatening and chasing off any customers who might wish to buy them.

There's a point at which a free expression of speech crosses the line into infringement of others rights. The point at which you are obstructing someone else's actions should clearly be past that point, right? And that's what these students did. They didn't just assemble nearby and wave signs Joph. They charged into the entrance of the hall, physically blocked access and otherwise disrupted the event. They were not just protesting.


Quote:
And been wrong three for three. Good for you. You said that the difference between free speech and hate speech depend son whether or not you agree with the politics of the speaker. You've utterly failed to make this point except to say "You know it's true!".


I said that when that happens, you have a problem with equality in your social system. I didn't say that the *are* that way all the time. Don't twist my words please.

I then went on to express an opinion that the label of "hate speech" is more or less invented as a means of enabling people to justify exactly the sort of actions taken on this campus. By separating speech into "free speech" and "hate speech", we create a mechanism by which some speech can be infringed based not on some kind of immediate harm (inciting to harmful action or causing such), but rather on some other much more vaguely defined criteria.


And that's what happened in this case. The students felt justified to act as they did because they weren't infringing legitimate speech, but rather "hate speech". I'm simply suggesting that once you create that mechanism then the mere act of labeling speech that way can prompt such actions (as happened in this case). What constitutes "hate speech"? We already have laws against speech which is specifically designed to bring about harm (shouting fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire, inciting people to riot or inflict harm on others, etc). Does Coulter's joke about riding a camel qualify?

I don't think so.


I just think you're really stretching the bounds of credulity to suggest that the reason her speech was labeled such had more to do with some actual immediate harm presented by her speech than it had to do with the political content of her speech. And again, that's ironic, because the students use of speech is much much closer to the legitimate definition of hateful or harmful speech than hers. They were inciting riot. They were threatening her and making people afraid to enter the hall. We normally condemn speech which strokes the flames of anger and which might result in violence, and defend the person who's expressing ideological concepts in a classroom setting. Why then is this reversed in this case? Why is her speech labeled "hate", while their's is labeled "free"? It's a bit inconsistent, isn't it?

Edited, Mar 24th 2010 7:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Mar 24 2010 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Ok. Gbaji I'm going to explain something to you.

Canadians do not like American conservative values. Our conservatives are pretty close to your tree huggers.

You see, Canadians in general actually care about other people. It's rather taboo to insinuate that someone is beneath you just because they were birthed by someone different than you, or because they want to make their own choices in life, or they prefer dudes over chicks. If someone needs surgery to live we think they should get it, regardless of their circumstances or the reason they can't afford it. It's just inhumane to not save someone's life when they need it.

Free speech is exactly that, free. Nobody stopped her from talking, or arrested her for her views, they simply said ********** off" because, you know, she's an idiot and they have free speech too.

The cops didn't stop her from speaking, her staff decided it was too dangerous. In America it may have been, I don't know. Here, nothing would have happened to her, because despite her views, nobody here is going to physically attack her for speaking. We will however tell her she's retarded and we don't want to hear the verbal diaria that she's about to spew.
#51 Mar 24 2010 at 11:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Haha... changed my mind. Not worth the effort Smiley: laugh

Edited, Mar 25th 2010 12:44am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 262 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (262)