Coulter vows to give talk, defying Berkeley order

[cubby]

He wasn't responding to the Ann Colter part. He responded to the person who quoted him. He ignored the first sentence because it had nothing to do with him or his argument. You ARE reaching.

So he responded to something he didn't read? Ok, that's fine with me.

Also, keep in mind, this is only proof I could find in this forum. It's highly unlikely that someone who involved in political discourse hasn't at least heard of Ann Coulter. I found his claim odd, and considering it was Zenny, I thought I would do a quick search - even though MMO's search function sucks ass (6 hits for Zenkai AND "ann coulter" but only three every showed up, lol).

It was more of an interesting thought that happened to pan out than anything else. Now Zenny is just digging his hole further with more of his lies.

One thing is sure, this entire thing would have come and gone, without anyone being bothered with it (except those attending out of their own personal interest), if there had been no drama about it.

It seems irrelevant drama is all we live in nowadays.

- - - Updated - - -

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you can customize your viewing experience, I see 40 post per page!

Did not know that - thanks!

[urasim]

Taking of a new leaf here, people vehemently oppose her at every turn. She's turned being the poster-girl of the Evil Neo-Con to a whole new level. It would be hard to find anyone with half a brain that doesn't bear some ill-will towards her.

Yet her books fly off the shelves. This isn't the best source, but I don't care enough to find better ones. She is a multi-millionaire.

Just because they buy her books doesn't mean they agree with her. Do you think Mein Kampf automatically makes everyone who reads it a Nazi, or do you think the only people who bought it are Nazis? Why even bring this up? The best way to beat an opponent is to know them as you know yourself.

[cubby]

Just because they buy her books doesn't mean they agree with her. Do you think Mein Kampf automatically makes everyone who reads it a Nazi, or do you think the only people who bought it are Nazis? Why even bring this up? The best way to beat an opponent is to know them as you know yourself.

That is a VERY good point - I myself have turned a few of her pages in book stores out of curiosity. Know thine enemy indeed.

[urasim]

So he responded to something he didn't read? Ok, that's fine with me.

Did you not fucking see what he was responding to? Context isn't your strong suit I'm guessing.

The person he's responding to has quoted two different people. Zenkai is responding to the part that's relevant to him. Would you have liked it better if he just edited out the part of quote that's not relevant to him?

[callipygoustp]

Some massive protests at Berkeley over this issue:

[Dextroden]

That is a VERY good point - I myself have turned a few of her pages in book stores out of curiosity. Know thine enemy indeed.

Plus, people that show off on Facebook burning books of people they don't like. I'm sure people like O'Reilly and Moore had sales from hatred.

[ohiostate124]

Some massive protests at Berkeley over this issue:

Why are the Republican woman always hotter?

[Kujako]

Why are the Republican woman always hotter?

I think its the daddy issues.

[-Nurot]

Clearly you yourself think it is an irresponsible allegation after you edited your post from "white supremacist" to "proponent of eugenics" which is also not true. TBC is an attempt to show how intelligence has an effect on poverty in the United States while reconciling the Flynn effect with consistent poverty trends. Murray elaborates on his thesis on the causes of poverty in his other books. For example in Losing Ground, where he argues the welfare state gives the poor perverse incentives. In Coming Apart, he argues the poor are consistently lacking in virtue.

I do disagree that many people have fully read and understood his work while being angry enough about it to go protest a speech by him. His work is thoughtful, fair and well researched. There have been reasonable criticisms of his books, TBC in particular, but that is not what we are talking about. It is not "mock intellectual bullshit" which is a stunning accusation from someone who I doubt has even read his work.

I didn't know where you got those quotes from so I quickly found it was from the SPLC which is an unreliable source that makes uncited criticisms and quotes out of context. That being the case, I see nothing wrong with any of those quotes that would indicate he is a racist, supports eugenics or is a white supremacist. People who are white supremacists usually don't write books like Coming Apart which is incredibly critical of white America, something the SPLC neglects to mention in their hatchet job of an article.

I think there is a correlation between IQ and poverty because there is a definitive correlation between IQ and conscientiousness. I think there is reasonable evidence to suggest IQ variance between different races, controlling for the Flynn effect makes that hard to quantify. I am not "blinded" by this belief. There are reasonable criticisms of Murray's work but being skeptical is different from violently protesting based off of false allegations.

Sometimes even context can't save the message and many of those seem pretty clear.

Either way, I digress, I personally haven't read any of his works and know very little about the man. It seems enough of his own work can be used against him in or out of context.

While I'm not someone who goes out and protests peacefully or otherwise, I can see why people might be vehemently opposed to him speaking on their campus.

All it really takes to turn a protest into a riot in a handful of violent people. Sadly if you somehow could keep them separate this would be a non-issue. Just like when he spoke at Columbia. People turned out and had signs and protested against him being their, but there was no violence, so he wasn't forced to cancel so there was no issue.

[ohiostate124]

Plus, people that show off on Facebook burning books of people they don't like. I'm sure people like O'Reilly and Moore had sales from hatred.

Book burning huh? Who are the nazis again?

[Dextroden]

Why are the Republican woman always hotter?

Opting out of hair dye instead of dying their hair odd colors?

Off topic. I don't care if people want to do technicolor dyes. But does anyone else think it doesn't flatter some people?

[Dextroden]

Book burning huh? Who are the nazis again?

A handful of shmucks that should be ignored since neither side knows how to use that word.

I.E.: Bush and Obama were Nazis.

[Deletedaccount1]

Sometimes even context can't save the message and many of those seem pretty clear.

Either way, I digress, I personally haven't read any of his works and know very little about the man. It seems enough of his own work can be used against him in or out of context.

While I'm not someone who goes out and protests peacefully or otherwise, I can see why people might be vehemently opposed to him speaking on their campus.

All it really takes to turn a protest into a riot in a handful of violent people. Sadly if you somehow could keep them separate this would be a non-issue. Just like when he spoke at Columbia. People turned out and had signs and protested against him being their, but there was no violence, so he wasn't forced to cancel so there was no issue.

It would still be an issue because they refused to let him speak at all despite the fact that he was invited to the school by members of the faculty and a student club.

Campus leftism is a problem to people who are concerned about intellectual integrity or about national politics in general. Preventing him from speaking because you dislike a biased synopsis of his views is basically akin to book burning.

[cubby]

Plus, people that show off on Facebook burning books of people they don't like. I'm sure people like O'Reilly and Moore had sales from hatred.

I've never understood the logic in that at all. If I will O' Billy I would be thanking them - and then criticizing them for being Nazi's - which would be hysterical when their little heads exploded.

Protesting is great - but I'd prefer people to be smart about it.

[Dextroden]

I've never understood the logic in that at all. If I will O' Billy I would be thanking them - and then criticizing them for being Nazi's - which would be hysterical when their little heads exploded.

Protesting is great - but I'd prefer people to be smart about it.

If people were smart about it, Coulter wouldn't have trolled her way into the spotlight.

[-Nurot]

It would still be an issue because they refused to let him speak at all despite the fact that he was invited to the school by members of the faculty and a student club.

Campus leftism is a problem to people who are concerned about intellectual integrity or about national politics in general. Preventing him from speaking because you dislike a biased synopsis of his views is basically akin to book burning.

-snip-

Meanwhile claiming there is an IQ variance between races is a pretty "stunning accusation" of itself in that you probably have no idea what variables actually go into such a "scientific" study. Even reading his works, you can't provide any evidence, especially since he can't with all his assumptions.

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.w...bell-curve.pdf

That's the reference book for any one who wants to surmise their own opinion.

"Whatever the reasons and whatever the variations from community to community, the reality of the demographic transition in the modern West is indisputable and so, it would seem, is the implication. If reproductive rates are correlated with income and educational levels, which are themselves correlated with intelligence, people with lower intelligence would presumably be outreproducing people with higher intelligence and thereby producing a dysgenic effect. Can we find evidence that dysgenesis is actually happening?"

In that paragraph alone, he assumes that education level is a direct correlation of intelligence. I think a good number of historical and present day geniuses and tycoons would disagree with that statement alone. He then takes the next several pages to discuss statistics on intelligence and how many children are born to a family dating back to statistics from the 1950s and looks at how intelligence is being bred out, because large families have low IQs and more children.

So no while not exclusively familiar with his work, like I'm sure you are. It feels like he predetermines an outcome and connects the dots to it methodology pretending it's of science making it seem unrealistic to me and I'll pass on his lessons of "dysgenics".

However him not speaking being akin to book burning is some sort of dystopian fiction. The courts time and time again have ruled that places of public learning are not truly places of free speech. Public institutions can impose limitations on speech when safety is at risk. Blame our courts and do what you will, but words have consequences and dress it up as science or not, if there is perceived insult from an individual expect people to respond. If people choose to get violent over said insults, then they should be jailed, but that doesn't lessen safety precautions that need to be taken.

So who's really at fault? The person making bogus claims and dressing it up as presumed fact and science, the protesters, the protesters turned violent, or the school who has an obligation to everyone's safety? I think they're all equally to blame and amount to a non-story to feign outrage at. It certainly is absolutely nothing like book burning when people's safety is involved. If anything the school is probably the only adult in the room in this case and the most responsible of them all.

[Tinykong]

Then why should they protest her? If she's ignorant then she is her own worst enemy. People should debate her, when you violently protest her you make her the good guy.

People are protesting what she represents/says, not her specifically. They protested that pedophile right wing speaker, too.

[zenkai]

People are protesting what she represents/says, not her specifically. They protested that pedophile right wing speaker, too.

I wouldn't call using threats of violence as simple protesting.

[Tinykong]

I wouldn't call using threats of violence as simple protesting.

Weren't you already called out on this right wing talking point?

[zenkai]

Weren't you already called out on this right wing talking point?

How is calling someone out using violence a right wing talking point? I am against using violence to silence others regardless if they are right or left, do you not agree with this? Or do you condone the violence?