Your post is way too long.

College campuses are often the site of crazy speeches or speeches by crazy people.

Even Ann Coulter gets to be heard now and then.

I predict that when this is all over, the sun will continue to rise in the East and set in the West.

Despite how controversial she maybe, Coulter is no Ridley.

Also what you say about the sun might be true, but by legitimizing this type of speech on a college campus you are slowly surrendering out civilization.

Mr. Constantine:

We obviously have a difference of opinion.

Unlike you, I believe it is perfectly acceptable for crazy people to make crazy speeches on a street corner or even at a state university, and that a perfectly appropriate response by sane people like me is one of indifference.

For daring to disagree with you, I am charged with "...slowly surrendering out civilization?"

All of civilization, Mr. Constantine?

If you are old enough to vote, then I am very concerned.

Conversely, if you are not yet 18, may I suggest that you grow up before using your parent's computer for any future adult discussions.

Excuse me One Who Knows.

"You" was meant as a generality, as you (specifically) couldn't possibly be responsible for surrendering civilization.

And as a matter of fact, I am over 18. I am a senior at UC Irvine. You (specifically) shouldn't charge me with ad hominens. Age discrimination is an old and cheap tactic in debate, and just shows you lack the competence and courage to debate me with facts.

Mr. Constantine

I think you are a raving, immature lunatic who should be banned from all adult conversation.

But I am pleased to allow Jubal to be the arbiter.

Whatever.

I'm with One Who Knows. Crazy speech is part of campus life. Whether it be the students themselves or guest speakers. Jonathan obviously has some kind of axe to grind.

With that said, good to know that Jonathan was voted one of the top ten scariest OC bloggers (but then, so was Jubal.)

http://theliberaloc.com/2007/10/31/top-ten-scariest-orange-county-political-bloggers/

Banning speech, even that as hateful, fascistic, and moronic as Comrade Ridley's, would be surrendering out civilization.

A few questions:

When did I ever call for a ban of free speech?

Do I have a right to argue against or condemn hate speech?

Or is that right only reserved to those radicals and crazy people?

I don't understand the logic.

Radical Arabs...Radical Jews...the U.S. is full of both....Let's buy some popcorn and hear what they all have to say. This one is not going to be solved in our lifetime and the Judeo/Christian press is not going to help sort this mess out any time soon.

It is with sadness that I see these extremists exercising the American Freedom they so passionately decry. Were any American to go to the college steps of their country with our American Flags and criticize the products of their nation or their religions or practices, we would be arrested and most likely decapitated. All things are not equal. They spew hate in our faces and because we are a "free" nation we let them. Today is the first day in a long time that I appreciate President Bush, the steadfast war on terror, and his standing fast in the face of all of the criticism that he takes. God Bless Bush.

At the risk of sounding an extremist myself; if it were a perfect/equal world, we would judge them by the rules, conventions and terrorist activity of their own country and lock them up where they can no longer stand on the steps of a college campus my freedom won American dollars have paid for, using the freedom won American press to spew their hatred and condemn my country. A country that has freed more people, and given more to this world than any other country. God Bless America. God Bless our soldiers and protect them from this ridiculous hateful spewing.

Yes, free speech is good. But who is silencing these radicals? Ridley has been going to dinner on her conversion for years.

If the MSU wants the respect of the public, they would have a legitimate debate with those who disagree with them instead of whipping up emotions with one-sided rallies or stopping other speakers with "protests."

Missing the point here.

JC is facsinated by radical Islam from the vantage point of the Planet of the Apes movie set. And that's okay.

To us oldsters it seems like more of a tempest in a teapot.

To To: next time take the risk of sounding like an extremest more seriously.

Yes, free speech is good. But who is silencing these radicals? Ridley has been going to dinner on her conversion for years.

If the MSU wants the respect of the public, they would have a legitimate debate with those who disagree with them instead of whipping up emotions with one-sided rallies or stopping other speakers with "protests."

Yes, free speech is good. But who is silencing these radicals? Ridley has been going to dinner on her conversion for years.

If the MSU wants the respect of the public, they would have a legitimate debate with those who disagree with them instead of whipping up emotions with one-sided rallies or stopping other speakers with "protests."

Yes, free speech is good. But who is silencing these radicals? Ridley has been going to dinner on her conversion for years.

If the MSU wants the respect of the public, they would have a legitimate debate with those who disagree with them instead of whipping up emotions with one-sided rallies or stopping other speakers with "protests."

Jonathan---

One Who Knows essentially says these speakers are crazy or talking crazy but colleges have lots of them--ergo the world will survive. Your response is that he and others who feel that way are legitamitizing this type of speech and thus surrendering out civilization.

The logic is hard to follow, thus I wanted to make it clear that suppressing speech--if thats where you were going--is a worse antidote then the sickness its meant to cure.

If you're not going there, well and good. But if someone thinks the speaker whom you loathe is crazy or talking crazy, good manners and good sense would suggest you thank them for their insight and move on. In case you missed it, OWK isn't giving props to these wingnuts. Instead you threw the gloves down and you two ended up in the sandbox.

Of course you can tee off on hate speech and its a straw man for you to suggest that only the radicals and crazy people can do so.

A suggestion: Listen to Dr. Redperegrine.

Redperegrine:

Although it is rare for us to agree, I am in complete agreement with you on this one.

Bladerunner:

You have said what I was thinking, thanks.

Jonathan:

It is entirely appropriate for you to point out that a radical speaker will be speaking to the MSU. Lucky for us there is an opportunity to see all points of view, the radical and moderate. That does not make those who listen, or those who invite the speakers radicals. It makes them informed.

I will put it this way. If Ann Coulter were to be invited to speak at UCI, I would most likely be critical. I would point out how her remarks can inspire violence and hatred of numerous groups. But at the end of the day, the world would continue. Some would frame her remarks as radical and others would frame them as inspiring. Coulter would have been able to speak and we all would be able to form our own opinions about her comments.

To Redperegrine - doest thou mock me? "...next time take the risk of sounding like an extremeist more seriously"...

Actually that was just the tip of the iceberg. But I have to behave or risk sounding as nuts as they readily proclaim by each word that they utter. Not that I'm not nuts, I may very well be nuts....but at least I'm on the American side LOL.

Why can't the left-wing UCI at least have a Republican Presidential debate held there? Do you suppose the candidates would be allowed by the audience to speak?

To said: "Why can't the left-wing UCI at least have a Republican Presidential debate held there? Do you suppose the candidates would be allowed by the audience to speak?"

Now that is far tooooo radical for the students at UCI. Won't happen as long as Manual Gomez and company or in charge. The anteater has his toungue so far up the donkey that the two have become one.

To said: "Why can't the left-wing UCI at least have a Republican Presidential debate held there? Do you suppose the candidates would be allowed by the audience to speak?"

Now that is far tooooo radical for the students at UCI. Won't happen as long as Manual Gomez and company or in charge. The anteater has his toungue so far up the donkey that the two have become one.

You are sooo correct. I suppose hiring Irwin wasn't enough. I actually asked one of the "powers" at UCI what their point was in pandering to the shrinking liberal audiences in OC if they want to build UCI they will need conservative support. Their answer was relative to just far up somewhere they have their heads....they actually replied that UCI is having an impact on the conservative sector and it's shrinking because UCI is bringing liberal views into the mainstream of OC. Geez, I hope not.

Poor Donald Bren. I think the guy is a conservative, and after he gives $20 mil to UCI for the Law School he gets the nations premier liberal as the founding dean.

If I were as rich as Don Bren I think my next act would be to fund an endowed chair (over which I could have some say in the hiring) and an "Institute for the Preservation of Conservative Idealism" and ask that a committee not consisting of anyone at UCI, and especially not Irwin, be on the committee for setting up this "institute"... would that be fun or what?

f I were as rich as Don Bren I think my next act would be to fund an endowed chair (over which I could have some say in the hiring) and an "Institute for the Preservation of Conservative Idealism"

As strange as it may seem to the political junkies on this blog (and of which I am one), not everyone defines themselves by their political philosophy. Bren is probably a person who wanted his name on a law school, and the question of whether the school was going to be run by a liberal or a conservative may not have been of much interest to him.

And he may not be interested one way or the other in whether "conservative idealism" is preserved.

Typical MSU program at UCI. Every quarter, they drag this Malik Ali character down from Oakland to spout his hatred. I can only conclude that the MSU is run by elements that the FBi should indeed be monitoring.

Gary Fouse
adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext
fousesquawk

Jonathan,

I loved your post because it reminded me of my favorite R.E.M. song and its catchy refrain:

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

Also, one my favorite punch lines is "The end of civilization, as we know it". John Cleese gets me every time with that line.

So thanks for the laughs in your follow up comments.

-tylerh

That's great Tylerh. Once again, you have demonstrated that the rebuttals to my post have been a series of personal attacks. I suggest you debate me on the substance of my argument against Ridley's hate.

JC, it helps to have a sense of humor about yourself as you go through life. Those of us with some age under our belts (well, lard, too) tend to look upon phrases like "surrendering out civilization" as just a tad amusing coming from a college kid.

But now it's your job to take both yourself and your ideas seriously - that's one of the things college is for (don't ask me about the others!).

Free advice for what it's worth.

"Once again, you have demonstrated that the rebuttals to my post have been a series of personal attacks."

Dear, Dear, Dear John.

That last time we interacted, I pointed out (1) that your post was off topic for OCBlog and (2) that "Islamo-fascism is an inherently flawed term for describing Islamic extremism." The conversation ended with your own writing proving my point. (Good of you to do that, by the way. Thanks).

If that's your idea of personal attack, you need to either thicken your hide or give up hopes of being an internet columnist. Again, look at your master blogger, Jubal. People here actively try to needle him and regularly accuse him of all sorts of unpleasant things, but Jubal (usually) manages to address the point move on without getting bogged down int he personal.

As for why several of us find this thread so bemusing, well, it's probably a generational thing.

Red and I grew up with "duck and cover" -- the Communists, unlike today's Muslim extremists and Saddam Hussein, really did have weapons of mass destruction. We managed to live through that, and Jimmy Carter, too.

To us, the idea that unshaved medievalists who couldn't even take over Afghanistan represent a massive threat not just to our security, but our _civilization_ sounds more like a Monty Python skit than a serious geo-political proposition.

I guess it's all in the perspective.

p.s. What is your favorite part of the Koran?