Coulter vows to give talk, defying Berkeley order

[Deletedaccount1]

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.



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.

I didn't provide any evidence because you didn't ask me to do so. And why would I? You should be perfectly capable of reading the book yourself, it is not my job to present evidence for you to summarily reject because you are too lazy or scared to read a book about it. If you disagree with the authors' conclusions, read a criticism of the book and see what you think. If you aren't willing to read the whole book, you should at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't know much about the subject.

Murray doesn't make radical claims that he doesn't back up. TBC is 900 pages of graphs and charts with 1500 academic citations. Murray is a bargainer, not a challenger. He is pragmatic and admits that his conclusions are based off of the evidence he has seen and he is willing and has in the past changed his views on numerous topics as new evidence has become available.

I don't know why you are taking one paragraph out of a 900 page book and expecting me to defend it. I first read TBC over a decade ago and re-read it about 4 years ago. I don't remember every detail of the book. It is not enough to dismiss his entire book because you find one small section of it questionable and your objection is worthless because you don't know enough about what he has written to determine if he has predetermined an outcome and "connected the dots" to fit his conclusion. If you read TBC, you will learn that his views were quite different before he dove in and did his research with Herrnstein.

I have never seen any court case that says publicly owned land is not subject to the first amendment and that assault against politically unpopular speech cannot be legally prosecuted. You make bold claims but you really don't know what you are talking about.

Again, you don't know enough to say Murray has made "bogus claims" or has lied about the science in his research. You are judging his book on the trial of public opinion on top of your own liberal sensibilities, not the facts being presented for either side of the IQ and poverty debate.

It can't even be called "feign outrage" because the story was barely covered by the media. The school which fails to prosecute perpetrators of assault or enforce school rules and state laws is hardly the adult. The only people jeopardizing safety are the dangerous protesters who are willing to harm people interested in actual debate because of their radical anti-intellectualism which you seem to share.

Edit: Let's also not forget that his speech at Middlebury had nothing to do with The Bell Curve or any other controversial subjects so the protesters had no basis in reality for arguing that his speech was "dangerous" when they went ahead and assaulted a professor for defending his right to speak on campus after being invited by a student group.

[zenkai]

Do you understand the difference between these two words:

possibility

threat

I can provide you with a definition if you need it.

You seriously can't be that naive, you wouldn't pretend to be ignorant just to continue to argue your point?

[Tinykong]

You seriously can't be that naive, you wouldn't pretend to be ignorant just to continue to argue your point?

There were no threats of violence. A threat of violence is when someone says "If Ann shows up, we're going to riot and burn the school down!"

You (and other right wing bullshit sites) are using the phrase "threats of violence" in an intentionally dishonest manner, to conjure up an image of people threatening Ann or her attendees in order to force a cancellation.

What you should be saying is that the school cancelled the event because the campus police were afraid there could be violence. That is vastly different than a specific threat.

- - - Updated - - -

You make it sound like the possibility of violence is minimal.

No one knows exactly what the possibility of violence is. The school has a duty to protect the students and it's facilities, so it should be overly cautious.

People saying there were "threats of violence" are not using the term to suggest a situation could have arose in which violence might have occurred, but rather, are using it to dishonestly imply that protesters made threats in order to force the cancellation.

That never happened.

[zenkai]

There were no threats of violence. A threat of violence is when someone says "If Ann shows up, we're going to riot and burn the school down!"

You (and other right wing bullshit sites) are using the phrase "threats of violence" in an intentionally dishonest manner, to conjure up an image of people threatening Ann or her attendees in order to force a cancellation.

What you should be saying is that the school cancelled the event because the campus police were afraid there could be violence. That is vastly different than a specific threat.

- - - Updated - - -



No one knows exactly what the possibility of violence is. The school has a duty to protect the students and it's facilities, so it should be overly cautious.

People saying there were "threats of violence" are not using the term to suggest a situation could have arose in which violence might have occurred, but rather, are using it to dishonestly imply that protesters made threats in order to force the cancellation.

That never happened.

Violence erupted when they found out she was going to speak, it increased as the date got near and that's why they canceled it but yet you say because no one officially say "hey we're going to fuck shit up when she speaks" you think there was no threat of violence?

L....M...F...A...O...

[-Nurot]

I didn't provide any evidence because you didn't ask me to do so. And why would I? You should be perfectly capable of reading the book yourself, it is not my job to present evidence for you to summarily reject because you are too lazy or scared to read a book about it. If you disagree with the authors' conclusions, read a criticism of the book and see what you think. If you aren't willing to read the whole book, you should at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't know much about the subject.

Murray doesn't make radical claims that he doesn't back up. TBC is 900 pages of graphs and charts with 1500 academic citations. Murray is a bargainer, not a challenger. He is pragmatic and admits that his conclusions are based off of the evidence he has seen and he is willing and has in the past changed his views on numerous topics as new evidence has become available.

I don't know why you are taking one paragraph out of a 900 page book and expecting me to defend it. I first read TBC over a decade ago and re-read it about 4 years ago. I don't remember every detail of the book. It is not enough to dismiss his entire book because you find one small section of it questionable and your objection is worthless because you don't know enough about what he has written to determine if he has predetermined an outcome and "connected the dots" to fit his conclusion. If you read TBC, you will learn that his views were quite different before he dove in and did his research with Herrnstein.

I have never seen any court case that says publicly owned land is not subject to the first amendment and that assault against politically unpopular speech cannot be legally prosecuted. You make bold claims but you really don't know what you are talking about.

Again, you don't know enough to say Murray has made "bogus claims" or has lied about the science in his research. You are judging his book on the trial of public opinion on top of your own liberal sensibilities, not the facts being presented for either side of the IQ and poverty debate.

It can't even be called "feign outrage" because the story was barely covered by the media. The school which fails to prosecute perpetrators of assault or enforce school rules and state laws is hardly the adult. The only people jeopardizing safety are the dangerous protesters who are willing to harm people interested in actual debate because of their radical anti-intellectualism which you seem to share.

Edit: Let's also not forget that his speech at Middlebury had nothing to do with The Bell Curve or any other controversial subjects so the protesters had no basis in reality for arguing that his speech was "dangerous" when they went ahead and assaulted a professor for defending his right to speak on campus after being invited by a student group.

So because you read this book 4 years ago, you'll simply defend his claims. Go ahead and defend dysgenics all you like. Sounds like you assume every aspect of his research is absolute gospel, so I'll leave you to your beliefs. I guess every 900 page theory with statistical evidence is assumed to be accurate then?

Since you're claiming the book is purely facts and not a game of statistics simply because you bothered to read it, not drawing your own conclusion seems rather lazy in this case.

The fact that you can't see that someone might be upset with an individual about topics they champion and might not want them speaking on their campuses where they live is rather telling. Seems pretty anti-intellectual when you seem to share your radical conservative opinions with that of the author, but can't even understand a cause for concern. Maybe it's for a lack of bothering to ask why people are upset.

Evidently you and him both assume women, African-Americans, and Hispanics are bred to have a lower IQ. Champion that, if you actually believe that then own it. Provide some evidence other than statistics he provides. Congratulations you read the convoluted statistics game he wrote. Clearly your's and his opinion are vastly superior. Statistics clearly can't be used as false claims and stereotypes. That's definitely never happened before right? Especially not in this case, because well you read the book and have a vastly superior intellect (like his) simply for doing so.

Who said "assault against politically unpopular speech cannot be legally prosecuted"? No one ever. In fact that's the exact opposite of what I said. In fact I said in what you quoted, but didn't bother to read. (Sorry it wasn't 900 pages of statistics and graphs with a predetermined outcome) -

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.

Those conservative sensibilities that have you pretending someone said otherwise are misleading you evidently.

You claim "You make bold claims but you really don't know what you are talking about." Try doing some research and ACTUALLY understand what your talking about. Talk about too lazy to read. Students have a right to free speech, but there are limitations. yes these are children, but public schools are still public property. (Again not 900 pages of misleading graphs and statistics, sorry. There's actual reading involved.)

http://education-law.lawyers.com/sch...n-schools.html

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.

Some other factors that courts have considered when deciding if the disruption from a student’s speech qualified under the Tinker standard:

Were other students so upset that they couldn’t concentrate or visited school counselors in droves?

Were classes cancelled or interrupted?

Did administrators and/or teachers have to take considerable time away from their regular duties in order to deal with the fallout?

Just because your conservative sensibilities say Ann Coulter should get to speak at any time and date of her choosing, safety be damned, doesn't make you or your opinions, or the conservatives using this as some kind of example correct. The school is obligated to keep people safe on its property even if it is a bombastic Republican who regularly makes inflammatory rhetoric. Conservatives can continue their diatribe of "life isn't fair" because it's not convenient to me, public safety be damned, this shock jock should get to do whatever she wants because "reasons". None of that though is based in reality.

They offered to have her come the week before finals when most "intellectuals" would be studying. She said no and blew it out of proportions. Of course the "sensible" conservatives gobbled the story up. She ended up not speaking at all. She wanted this to happen, and the conservatives are playing off their rhetoric which you agree with evidently. If she can't pick the exact date why bother with freedom of speech at all right? No freedom of speech is better than limited freedom that would allow one to speak to THE SAME audience just a week later to avoid confrontation and keep the peace. When your only play a game of statistics and feelings, I guess logic can be eluding.

Violence erupted when they found out she was going to speak, it increased as the date got near and that's why they canceled it but yet you say because no one officially say "hey we're going to fuck shit up when she speaks" you think there was no threat of violence?

L....M...F...A...O...

When you have a massive group of people either protesting, or celebrating (When sports teams win and such), there appears to become a mob mentality. No one really says to themselves hey lets go tip over cars and set buildings on fire. One person starts and it just sort of happens. This is a minority of the group. The majority of people in both situations are not violent. It reflects badly on the group as a whole, unfortunately, which the rioters don't understand (or care?).

The second half of that is, have I said enough stupid shit to expect to have a giant crowd of protesters upset over what I've said, where this could potentially happen? If the answer is yes, then no one should be surprised when this happens. Again, it's like (surprise) words have consequences. The speaker is as much as fault as the protesters. Now the rioters, that seems to be an unfortunate consequence of not everyone being able to behave themselves in these situations without going crazy and lacking common sense. But, the initial protests, both the speaker and the protesters are at fault for.

[Tinykong]

Violence erupted when they found out she was going to speak, it increased as the date got near and that's why they canceled it but yet you say because no one officially say "hey we're going to fuck shit up when she speaks" you think there was no threat of violence?

L....M...F...A...O...

None of this happened. This is what happens when you let the National Review shape your perception of reality.

edit:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...427-story.html

Hey, look at that, just like people who aren't right wing lunatics thought, nothing happened.



Also, you'll note the school said there were no specific threats. The National Review and other nutbag outlets twisted that into "terrorists shut down the event by threatening violence."

[-Nurot]

None of this happened. This is what happens when you let the National Review shape your perception of reality.

edit:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...427-story.html

Hey, look at that, just like people who aren't right wing lunatics thought, nothing happened.

No, but a precedence was set with Milo Yanapedo. There was $100,000 in property damage. Of course there will be hyperbole and assumptions running wild after that. Now they can play to their base and cry "Oh my what would have happened if she did show up. This poor, poor innocent woman."

[Tinykong]

No, but a precedence was set with Milo Yanapedo. There was $100,000 in property damage. Of course there will be hyperbole and assumptions running wild after that. Now they can play to their base and cry "Oh my what would have happened if she did show up. This poor, poor innocent woman."

The school cancelled the event because an outbreak of violence was a possibility.

zenkai, and others, are suggesting that protesters made specific threats against this event and Ann Coulter in an attempt to force the cancellation. That never happened. The violence they are referring to isn't even related to this event, but was related to the Patriot's Day rally.

[-Nurot]

The school cancelled the event because an outbreak of violence was a possibility.

zenkai, and others, are suggesting that protesters made specific threats against this event and Ann Coulter in an attempt to force the cancellation. That never happened. The violence they are referring to isn't even related to this event, but was related to the Patriot's Day rally.

Also to be fair Berkeley also claimed that the $100,000+ in damages was done by a group of 150 or so Blac Bloc members and not students. It just too easily fits their narrative to claim that all liberal college students need a safe space AND are prone to violence when someone doesn't agree with them. These sensationalized news reports by the alt-right simply play to that, when really what they're requesting is a SAFE SPACE for their own speakers from protesters. The same speakers who intentionally vomit stupidity and bigotry in an effort to stay relevant by shocking their political opponents.

[satimy]

Also to be fair Berkeley also claimed that the $100,000+ in damages was done by a group of 150 or so Blac Bloc members and not students. It just too easily fits their narrative to claim that all liberal college students need a safe space AND are prone to violence when someone doesn't agree with them. These sensationalized news reports by the alt-right simply play to that, when really what they're requesting is a SAFE SPACE for their own speakers from protesters. The same speakers who intentionally vomit stupidity and bigotry in an effort to stay relevant by shocking their political opponents.

I now define everything you type as hate speech, I will be forced into rioting and violence if you ever type again.

[-Nurot]

I now define everything you type as hate speech, I will be forced into rioting and violence if you ever type again.

So be it, if that is truly is the action of my words, then I bear equally responsibility in the matter in the manner of protesting.

Especially if I used the type of rhetoric Ann Coulter and Milo Yanapedo routinely do.

As for the violence you'd be in the minority, and I won't share any responsibility in that and you should be arrested if you damage property.

It's almost like words have consequences...

[satimy]

So be it, if that is truly is the action of my words, then I bear equally responsibility in the matter in the manner of protesting.

Especially if I used the type of rhetoric Ann Coulter and Milo Yanapedo routinely do.

As for the violence you'd be in the minority, and I won't share any responsibility in that and you should be arrested if you damage property.

Is almost like words have consequences...

More hate speech? Disgusting, you are culpable for rioting based on your own logic

[Deletedaccount1]

So because you read this book 4 years ago, you'll simply defend his claims. Go ahead and defend dysgenics all you like. Sounds like you assume every aspect of his research is absolute gospel, so I'll leave you to your beliefs. I guess every 900 page theory with statistical evidence is assumed to be accurate then?

Since you're claiming the book is purely facts and not a game of statistics simply because you bothered to read it, not drawing your own conclusion seems rather lazy in this case.

The fact that you can't see that someone might be upset with an individual about topics they champion and might not want them speaking on their campuses where they live is rather telling. Seems pretty anti-intellectual when you seem to share your radical conservative opinions with that of the author, but can't even understand a cause for concern. Maybe it's for a lack of bothering to ask why people are upset.

Evidently you and him both assume women, African-Americans, and Hispanics are bred to have a lower IQ. Champion that, if you actually believe that then own it. Provide some evidence other than statistics he provides. Congratulations you read the convoluted statistics game he wrote. Clearly your's and his opinion are vastly superior. Statistics clearly can't be used as false claims and stereotypes. That's definitely never happened before right? Especially not in this case, because well you read the book and have a vastly superior intellect (like his) simply for doing so.

Who said "assault against politically unpopular speech cannot be legally prosecuted"? No one ever. In fact that's the exact opposite of what I said. In fact I said in what you quoted, but didn't bother to read. (Sorry it wasn't 900 pages of statistics and graphs with a predetermined outcome) -



Those conservative sensibilities that have you pretending someone said otherwise are misleading you evidently.

You claim "You make bold claims but you really don't know what you are talking about." Try doing some research and ACTUALLY understand what your talking about. Talk about too lazy to read. Students have a right to free speech, but there are limitations. yes these are children, but public schools are still public property. (Again not 900 pages of misleading graphs and statistics, sorry. There's actual reading involved.)

I'm not going to continue arguing with you about a book that you haven't read. What you are saying isn't even in the book anymore and you are just making assumptions about what is in the book based off of what you have heard online. It is off-topic anyway.

[zenkai]

None of this happened. This is what happens when you let the National Review shape your perception of reality.

edit:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...427-story.html

Hey, look at that, just like people who aren't right wing lunatics thought, nothing happened.



Also, you'll note the school said there were no specific threats. The National Review and other nutbag outlets twisted that into "terrorists shut down the event by threatening violence."

I linked you evidence, that even had video, you ignored it. Yeah no point in talking to someone who is obviously a liar and clueless.

[-Nurot]

I'm not going to continue arguing with you about a book that you haven't read. What you are saying isn't even in the book anymore and you are just making assumptions about what is in the book based off of what you have heard online. It is off-topic anyway.

Stating that you read the book, so it's accurate, is not an argument by any means. You can't defend the contents of a book you read 8 years ago, enough said no argument there. I posted the book in it's entirety for people to surmise their own opinions. He has controversial opinions that you happen to agree with. Off-topic over indeed.

On topic I'm done debating whether or not cancelling any of the 3 speakers recently was within the rights of Berkeley. You clearly haven't even read any law or case study on the matter and are making assumptions about these speakers and the situations based on what you've heard online. Either way, not sure there was much of an argument other than you simply claiming you were right and I was wrong. Consider the debate, or lack thereof over.

[Deletedaccount1]

Stating that you read the book, so it's accurate, is not an argument by any means. You can't defend the contents of a book you read 8 years ago, enough said no argument there. I posted the book in it's entirety for people to surmise their own opinions. He has controversial opinions that you happen to agree with. Off-topic over indeed.

On topic I'm done debating whether or not cancelling any of the 3 speakers recently was within the rights of Berkeley. You clearly haven't even read any law or case study on the matter and are making assumptions about these speakers and the situations based on what you've heard online. Either way, not sure there was much of an argument other than you simply claiming you were right and I was wrong. Consider the debate, or lack thereof over.

I said I read the book 4 years ago not 8. You haven't read the book, you don't even seem to know what it is about. I never said it was accurate and if half of the thing was wrong it still wouldn't make the protesters right. It doesn't matter whether you posted the book or not if you are too lazy or uninterested to read it.

You are hardly aware of the law surrounding the controversy, it isn't even a legal issue. This case would certainly fail the Tinker test that has been the standard since the supreme court ruling that you yourself linked. Your entire argument is flipping my words around while accusing me of doing the same thing. I can't even fathom how you can claim to be in the right about a topic you have admitted to being ignorant about.

Edit: Let me elaborate that I think it probably isn't smart to invite controversial speakers for the sake of being controversial. Anger is justified but forceful coercion and violence are not. This is the disconnect that I find in what you are saying. I agree that Murray is controversial and it is reasonable that people are upset with that but I still don't understand why you think it is legal or morally correct to stop him from giving a speech that doesn't even relate to his controversial research.

[Tinykong]

I linked you evidence, that even had video, you ignored it. Yeah no point in talking to someone who is obviously a liar and clueless.

The protest you linked was not related to Coulter's speech.

Scott Biddy and Stephen Sutton cancelled the event because they were afraid violence might break out in a similar fashion to the April 15th protest you referenced.

They couldn't provide Coulter with an indoor venue, so when they decided to move to an outdoor space, campus police suggested cancelling the event or rescheduling it because they did not have the resources to provide adequate protection to the school and students should violence break out.

Again, there were no specific threats of violence against the event or Coulter. The bat shit crazy right wing shit spewers are twisting the school's letter around and using the phrase "threats of violence" in an attempt to claim that protesters used violence to force the cancellation of the event to silence Coulter.

If you want to believe that, be my guest. Just know that you are engaging in abject stupidity.

[zenkai]

The protest you linked was not related to Coulter's speech.

Scott Biddy and Stephen Sutton cancelled the event because they were afraid violence might break out in a similar fashion to the April 15th protest you referenced.

They couldn't provide Coulter with an indoor venue, so when they decided to move to an outdoor space, campus police suggested cancelling the event or rescheduling it because they did not have the resources to provide adequate protection to the school and students should violence break out.

Again, there were no specific threats of violence against the event or Coulter. The bat shit crazy right wing shit spewers are twisting the school's letter around and using the phrase "threats of violence" in an attempt to claim that protesters used violence to force the cancellation of the event to silence Coulter.

If you want to believe that, be my guest. Just know that you are engaging in abject stupidity.

Linked to evidence and you still deny the facts, Berkeley even canceled because they feared for her safety, yet you deny it. stay ignorant my friend. None of your bullshit will convince me over facts.

[-Nurot]

I said I read the book 4 years ago not 8. You haven't read the book, you don't even seem to know what it is about. I never said it was accurate and if half of the thing was wrong it still wouldn't make the protesters right. It doesn't matter whether you posted the book or not if you are too lazy or uninterested to read it.

You are hardly aware of the law surrounding the controversy, it isn't even a legal issue. This case would certainly fail the Tinker test that has been the standard since the supreme court ruling that you yourself linked. Your entire argument is flipping my words around while accusing me of doing the same thing. I can't even fathom how you can claim to be in the right about a topic you have admitted to being ignorant about.

You read one book and are now the an authoritative expert. I read portions, of which entire pages cannot be taken out of context. Saying he's right simply because you bothered to read his statistics is either lazy or disingenuous or both.

Here's an unbiased summary of what it's about for any one who cares about the "The Cognitive Elite" garbage you are trying to peddle.

http://www.intelltheory.com/bellcurve.shtml

I'm pretty sure most will be able to figure out his arguments (and apparently yours) pretty quickly.

I don't care whether or not you or him think, your more intelligent than the rest of society and that certain races and genders are inferior to you. Own that, you believe it to be true. Just don't pretend to be objective.

You assume it would fail the Tinker test because your feelings are involved, not because it actually does.

"You are hardly aware of the law surrounding the controversy, it isn't even a legal issue." There's a sentence that makes zero sense, you don't understand the laws that apply to this, but no laws apply...... Talk about being hardly aware.

Your biased argument of, BUT I READ THE BOOK, and they deserve to speak because I SAID SO, and the law doesn't apply BECAUSE I SAID SO, really holds no water at all.

Your posts, like your biased posts in the past are purely conservative "sensibilities."

[Tinykong]

Linked to evidence and you still deny the facts, Berkeley even canceled because they feared for her safety, yet you deny it. stay ignorant my friend. None of your bullshit will convince me over facts.

The link you posted doesn't say what you are claiming it says. 30 seconds of reading on any number of news articles you can find on google will show you that there were no specific threats against Coulter or the event.

Are you really this obtuse? Or maybe dealing with facts is starting to trouble you.