Coulter vows to give talk, defying Berkeley order

[Deletedaccount1]

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.

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.

"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.

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.

I never said I was the authoritative expert. However, on the subject of what exactly is in the Bell Curve I am basically as knowledgeable as God himself and you as knowledgeable as a worm because you can't not read the book and understand the complex, multifaceted and self admittedly imperfect thesis being presented. You didn't quote entire pages, you quoted a paragraph. Nearly every paragraph of that book has an accompanying graph with it as well.

I am not saying he is right with absolute certainty. I personally find his work convincing but that is completely beside the point.

The Bell Curve doesn't mention gender disparities in intelligence. It mentions racial disparities but it doesn't make the argument that races are inferior to one another, it just presents evidence on racial IQ disparities and attempts to see how that might fit into disparities in other areas between races such as educational level or income. These are 2 chapters of a 25 chapter book. You are dismissing an entire academic figure based off of 2 chapters in one book out of his 20 or so works.

This is Murray himself speaking about the racial IQ gap



The precedent set forth by Tinker is summarized in the Wikipedia article for the case.

The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."

It seems like my feelings have very little to do with it. In fact it seems like the case I am making relies very little on feelings.

[-Nurot]

I never said I was the authoritative expert. However, on the subject of what exactly is in the Bell Curve I am basically as knowledgeable as God himself and you as knowledgeable as a worm because you can't not read the book and understand the complex, multifaceted and self admittedly imperfect thesis being presented. You didn't quote entire pages, you quoted a paragraph. Nearly every paragraph of that book has an accompanying graph with it as well.

I am not saying he is right with absolute certainty. I personally find his work convincing but that is completely beside the point.

The Bell Curve doesn't mention gender disparities in intelligence. It mentions racial disparities but it doesn't make the argument that races are inferior to one another, it just presents evidence on racial IQ disparities and attempts to see how that might fit into disparities in other areas between races such as educational level or income. These are 2 chapters of a 25 chapter book. You are dismissing an entire academic figure based off of 2 chapters in one book out of his 20 or so works.

This is Murray himself speaking about the racial IQ gap



The precedent set forth by Tinker is summarized in the Wikipedia article for the case.



It seems like my feelings have very little to do with it. In fact it seems like the case I am making relies very little on feelings.

Ignoring Murray and focusing on Coulter and Milo you have to look at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_disruption

In which the Tinker test absolutely applies. This isn't a simple case of silently wearing black armbands in solidarity.

[Deletedaccount1]

Ignoring Murray and focusing on Coulter and Milo you have to look at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_disruption

In which the Tinker test absolutely applies. This isn't a simple case of silently wearing black armbands in solidarity.

I don't see how Coulter giving a speech interferes "with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school".

[-Nurot]

http://education.findlaw.com/school-...ol-safety.html

Free speech can be restricted based on the issue of safety. The school can punish and/or prevent such behaviors.

I think our disagreement lies in the fact that these are rulings involving underage students and also do not involving an outside presence coming in and causing a disturbance.

With the conservative group suing Berkeley over Coulter's visit, that will really be the test to see where, or how far that goes and the outcome.

Traditionally speakers have not been rioted against on such a scale, but then again most speakers have been traditional Conservatives and not shock jocks.

As far as Murray, I'm not going to pretend that his event should have been cancelled, but one reason his didn't make much news is because he is an academic, regardless of his views, and not a foul showboat like Coulter or Milo. In this case Berkeley could take a cue from Columbia on how to peacefully protest.

[urasim]

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.

This bullshit game you're playing is really annoying. "No specific threats" no one arguing there was a specific threat. There were plenty of threats that were verbal and non-verbal. The Ann Coulter protest saw a couple arrests even though there was little to no violence. One of them had one of those deadly pocket knives. One of those knives that were sold by antifa.

Just because there isn't a specific verbal threat doesn't mean there isn't a threat. Why are you denying this?

[Tinykong]

This bullshit game you're playing is really annoying. "No specific threats" no one arguing there was a specific threat. There were plenty of threats that were verbal and non-verbal. The Ann Coulter protest saw a couple arrests even though there was little to no violence. One of them had one of those deadly pocket knives. One of those knives that were sold by antifa.

Just because there isn't a specific verbal threat doesn't mean there isn't a threat. Why are you denying this?

Please, show me a link where people were specifically threatening violence towards Coulter or this event. I'll wait.

[urasim]

Please, show me a link where people were specifically threatening violence towards Coulter or this event. I'll wait.

Did you not read what I wrote? Go away. I never said there was a specific threat against her. Stop being so fucking fallacious.

[Tinykong]

Did you not read what I wrote? Go away. I never said there was a specific threat against her. Stop being so fucking fallacious.

You've wandered into this conversation like a child stumbling into a movie and crying about it, not understanding what has happened up until this point.

Since you decided to start flailing, I'll bring you up to speed while you take your foot out of your mouth.

I specifically criticized zenkai for posting right wing nonsense by claiming that protesters made threats of violence to shut the event down:

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

That never happened.

This "threats of violence" nonsense started when alt-right shit spewing sources picked up this story, and manipulated the school's letter that cited "threats of violence" as the reason for not allowing Coulter to have an outdoor venue. The "threat of violence" was the April 15th protest in Berkeley which was a clash between pro-Trump and anti-Trump groups, which had nothing to do with Coulter or her speaking.

There was no threat of violence against this event, or Coulter. The school was afraid that an outdoor event could turn into a violent protest, which would put school property and students at risk.

The whole "anti-Trump terrorists shut down Coulter and suppressed her free speech!" is made up bullshit, and by peddling it, you're aligning yourself with liars. If you are okay with that, be my guest, but don't get all wound up when called out on it.

[urasim]

You've wandered into this conversation like a child stumbling into a movie and crying about it, not understanding what has happened up until this point.
-snip-

Threats of violence aren't always SPOKEN. You showing up with a mob that has weapons is a threat of violence. Even under the definition of the word "threat" it says it doesn't have to be spoken. It's not my fault you suck at English, but you're dead wrong on this topic.

[Tinykong]

Threats of violence aren't always SPOKEN. You showing up with a mob that has weapons is a threat of violence. Even under the definition of the word "threat" it says it doesn't have to be spoken. It's not my fault you suck at English, but you're dead wrong on this topic.

Do I need to write it on a piece of paper with a crayon?

No one threatened this event. The school was afraid protesters might show up, and that those protesters might clash with attendees and that violence might break out.

The notion that protesters made specific threats about this event to prevent Coulter from showing up is dishonest shit spewing.

You're not even talking about the same subject I am. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[urasim]

Do I need to write it on a piece of paper with a crayon?

No need to be an asshole, right?

No one threatened this event. The school was afraid protesters might show up, and that those protesters might clash with attendees and that violence might break out.

They did show up, though. And how the fuck do you know what they're thinking from what was written in that article?

Here's some things they actually said.

Those threats she mentions are the exact reason we wanted her to come on a day when a protectable venue is available

And a quote from UC Berkeley Chancellor Dirks.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/04/20/...coulter-visit/

Our police department has made it clear that they have very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker

I guess you're calling the police and the Chancellor a liar now?

The notion that protesters made specific threats about this event to prevent Coulter from showing up is dishonest shit spewing.

You're not even talking about the same subject I am. Stop embarrassing yourself.

No one knows what the fuck you're talking about. It's certainly not reality when you keep spouting nonsense that's in direct conflict with it.

Edit: Here's some more fucking quotes that shits all over your silly argument.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/04/26/...coulter-visit/

We cannot wish away or pretend that these threats do not exist

In relation to the invitation made by a student group for Ann Coulter to speak at Berkeley this week, we have therefore to take seriously the intelligence UCPD has regarding threats of violence that could endanger our students, our community, and perhaps even Ms. Coulter herself. It is specific, significant and real.

"It is specific, significant and real"

[Tinykong]

No need to be an asshole, right?

Oh, the irony.

They did show up, though. And how the fuck do you know what they're thinking from what was written in that article?

I don't, and I never claimed that I did. I also never said that violence wasn't a possibility.

I guess you're calling the police and the Chancellor a liar now?

No shit, protesters who have been engaged in violence might engage in that same type of violence again.

You're arguing about something I'm not even talking about. Calm down for 30 seconds and actually read my post, instead of just continuing to make a fool of yourself.

Do you understand the difference between:

Protester:
"If you don't cancel Coulter's speech, we're going to burn your fucking school to the ground and kill everyone!!!"

and

School Officials:
"Tensions are high surrounding political rallies, we don't have an indoor venue we can secure, we should cancel this event."

If you don't understand the difference, well, sorry. Stop embarrassing yourself and lower everyone's collective intelligence by continuing to attack an argument no one ever made.

No one knows what the fuck you're talking about. It's certainly not reality when you keep spouting nonsense that's in direct conflict with it.

I'm referring specifically to the made up claims that threats of violence were used to force the cancellation of Coulter's talk. The possibility of violence caused the school to cancel her talk because a safe venue could not be setup.

[urasim]

I'm referring specifically to the made up claims that threats of violence were used to force the cancellation of Coulter's talk. The possibility of violence caused the school to cancel her talk because a safe venue could not be setup.

They said the reasons why they canceled it was the threats of violence. You didn't read what the Chancellor wrote. He said the threat was "specific, significant and real". I've been trying to explain to you that when someone says "threats of violence" it's not a specific verbal threat. No one even argued anything like that. The only person who's arguing about a "specific verbal threat" is YOU.

I'm done with you. Bye.

[Tinykong]

They said the reasons why they canceled it was the threats of violence. You didn't read what the Chancellor wrote. He said the threat was "specific, significant and real". I've been trying to explain to you that when someone says "threats of violence" it's not a specific verbal threat. No one even argued anything like that. The only person who's arguing about a "specific verbal threat" is YOU.

zenkai did.

Yes, the threat was that a protest group was planning on showing up and protesting the event. There was no threat made to cancel the event or else. That you can't understand this is really, really sad.

I'm done with you. Bye.

Best post in this thread.

[zenkai]

They said the reasons why they canceled it was the threats of violence. You didn't read what the Chancellor wrote. He said the threat was "specific, significant and real". I've been trying to explain to you that when someone says "threats of violence" it's not a specific verbal threat. No one even argued anything like that. The only person who's arguing about a "specific verbal threat" is YOU.

I'm done with you. Bye.

You're better off he wants to be openly wrong and ignorant of the facts.

[Laerrus]

Personally I recommend rounding up all the people on the extreme Left and extreme right, put 'em in a giant cage and let them fight to the death.

Two men enter, one man leaves!

[Edge-]

Personally I recommend rounding up all the people on the extreme Left and extreme right, put 'em in a giant cage and let them fight to the death.

Oddly enough, my coworkers and I were just talking about this idea yesterday. Take the assholes from both ends of the spectrum and rather than have them go to Berkeley, put them all in the Oakland Coliseum and let them battle to the death there. They get to enjoy all the violence that both groups crave so much, and everyone else gets to go on with their lives without needing to deal with the bullshit. And at the end of the day, only one group of assholes will be left instead of two.

Win fucking win!

/highfive for Beyond Thunderdome though, love that fucking movie.

[Tinykong]

You're better off he wants to be openly wrong and ignorant of the facts.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation for the claim you made. This forum is going to be shut down before that ever happens, because it doesn't exist.

[zenkai]

I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation for the claim you made. This forum is going to be shut down before that ever happens, because it doesn't exist.

When you're going to figure out you're wrong and that I care what you have to say on a subject you clearly lie and deny facts on?

[Tinykong]

When you're going to figure out you're wrong and that I care what you have to say on a subject you clearly lie and deny facts on?

You've shifted away from the claim you originally made:

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

and now are claiming that the threat of violence was just the mere possibility of violence. Except, that's not what you said.

You made it quite clear earlier in the thread that you're not capable of unbiased, rational thinking:

I am confused what the Berkeley violence have anything to do with Trump in the first place, lets not lose focus on the Domestic Terrorist at Berkeley.

Do you work for the National Review? Because you're basically just plagiarizing the diarrhea they post.