estebanana -> RE: Banned Books Week: September 24-30, 2017 (Sep. 24 2017 20:00:35)
|
quote:
The spirit of the First Amendment and the right to free speech is not contingent; it does not depend on whether or not this group or that group agrees with the speaker. Offensive speech is best countered with more speech challenging it. Ann Coulter is one of the more extreme examples on the Right, but there are other speakers of a Conservative stripe who simply express a viewpoint at odds with those on the Left on university campuses, and they are shouted down and sometimes hounded off the podium as well. I get what you're saying, and in my opinion Ann Coulter is passe', not even extreme, she's just good at getting paid to be annoying. The thing I object to in real situations is that if you take a campus like Berkeley, University of California Berkeley, that agent provacateurs target either liberal, or far right institutions, with a kind of prejudice and malicious intent that it needs to be called out or downright resisted. Now if someone has a story to tell or a subject to expound upon that is uncomfortable for some citizens to hear, but a subject that may benefit a certain group and the intention is altruistic, or neutral or even slightly aggressive at advocating an unpopular view, so be it. They should have a say. The problem with the Milos'es and the Richard Spencer's and to an extent Coulter, (although she's been put in her place by umpteen intellectuals no less cutting than Christopher Hitchens who eviscerated her twenty years ago so badly she's been ever since a walking wounded corpse trailing half dead guts and intestine under her own cloven hooves- but that does not count because her readers are too daft to know not Hitchens from a doorknob.) is that the Milos' are only out to insult and provoke in an environment where they really don't belong. If someone wants to have a Nazi rally, it's protected speech, to an extent legally, sure, but that does not mean I have to have them in my town. Nor does it mean I have to welcome them or be accommodating within legal bounds. Letting someone know they are not welcome in your town is also legal. The city of Castro Valley is about 18 miles from Berkeley, and apologies to anyone who lives there if you see this, but directly post WWII African American families who wanted to buy property in Castro Valley and enter into a middle class contract to buy a home in this developing area were discouraged to do so by not too subtle means. The message was clear, 'this is a white enclave and you better be ready for rough treatment if you cross the Oakland - Castro Valley border line'. Historically there is a precedent set by white people in the East Bay area of San Francisco Bay where black people and poorer whites, and ethnic minorities were discouraged from ascending into certain areas, even though they may have been fully employed as middle class citizens of substance. Historically the UC Berkeley campus has been a strong hold of creating a support system to develop resistance against social injustices, a major case in point is the development of laws for disabled people to access public places. Berkeley is where that developed. In the case of Berkeley, like it or not the reason right wing groups target that area is because it is known as a place where the line is held held against the far right getting away with promoting unjust social policy. So it was never really a center based political area. When current right wing groups go to Berkeley, it's not about winning the hearts and minds of downtrodden locals under the cruel boot of leftists who won't leave them alone, right wing agitators go there because it's good showmanship and they know a small contingent of rock throwers will show up. They are there to get hit with rocks, 95%or less of the crowd is not throwing rocks, but saying OK you can come here, but we're going to jeer you. Which seems fair given...... The equivalent of a person who is looking for rakes and potholes to trip on so they can sue the city; That is the intent of right wing extremists attempting to preach in left enclaves, it never ends well and it's the same low class tactic of a person seeking to entrap others in accidents which lead to falsely litigious actions. It's a subtle form of acting as a victim. Given what a difficult world it is and that there are real victims of natural disasters and political violence outside the US, I view right wing provocation and white victim hood as highly self indulgent. So how do you deal with self indulgent Nazi's who want to come to your street? Maybe throwing a well paced rock or two is ok, it works in the Bible. David wins. Why not? If they want to claim the Old testament they should be ready to live it instead of being snowflakes seeking TV camera time in Berkeley. Or better yet, they can stay home an be Nazis where THEY live. If someone wants to read Mien Kampf, awesome for them, but if you preach it on my street you might get hurt. That strategy worked for the KKK for 150 years. See just because the left is 'supposed' to turn the other cheek and face death threats with peaceful protest does not mean it will always happen, it should- What if Steve Bannon or Richard Spencer had to endure what Salman Rushdie endured? I'm sure they would cave, would they keep going if their lives were destroyed? Well guess what, no body is issuing a fatwa against their Nazi arses, so boo hoo for them. Poor misunderstood white nationalists, so oppressed, so abused, so incredibly stupid.
|
|
|
|