User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 23

  1. #11
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536
    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    It's a "revolutionary" approach instead of the more methodical, gradual change. Violence falls in the former category. And it's not just Marxists and islamists who embrace it.
    Yes, I think violence is the touchstone. Violence is the one political method that puts us outside liberal democracy.

  2. #12
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    The libertarian left will only censor free speech if they think the opinions being expressed are idiotic.
    Free speech means the right to offend as well as being idiotic.

  3. #13
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536
    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    To the end of their days the Menshevik party crashers were known as the Bolsheviks.
    There is a famous Bolshoi in the Red City, to remind of the grand event.
    Here we call someone who is being difficult in the face of authority, "bolshy". I wonder if our 'bolshy' and the 'Bolshoi' are the same. It would throw a whole new light on the Bolshoi Ballet.

  4. #14
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536
    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    The left relative to what?
    The left, ie, the marxist-leninist left, relative to liberal democracy.

  5. #15
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    This is the best articulation of the thought policing that goes on on the left I've seen.

    From Rod Dreher at the American Conservative:

    Illiberal Education at Columbia

    Kyle Dontoh, a student at Columbia University, writes in the campus paper about a ridiculous attempt to stifle free speech in the name of protecting students from having to hear opinions they don’t like.

    The conference was about “The Family In Modern Society.” Here was the line-up of speakers:

    Sherif Girgis, Yale University
    Professor Lynn Wardle, Brigham Young Law
    Professor W. Bradford Wilcox, University of Virginia
    Professor Paul Kerry, Brigham Young Law
    Dr. Robert Lerman, Urban Institute
    Dawn Eden, Author

    According to Dontoh, who supports same-sex marriage, it was a great program:

    The lectures were thoughtful and incisive—so much so that I quickly discarded my original plan of staying for a few sessions before returning to work. The speakers, to a T, were academics who based their arguments and presentations on facts and reason, not on bigotry or prejudice. Only one speaker, author Dawn Eden, made an argument based on religious grounds, and her lecture, “Everything is Tolerated and Nothing is Forgiven,” was about chastity and dealing with the excesses of permissiveness, not about the LGBT community. Only three speakers broached the issue of same-sex relationships, and only two of those three explicitly passed judgment on these relationships.

    Even then, the arguments were made on strictly rational grounds. Lynn Wardle outlined the case for traditional marriage on the notion that the family was the original, fundamental building block of society as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Disagree as I may, this was not the rambling of a bigot. This was a reasoned, principled argument based on a fundamental respect for the LGBT community coupled with a specific interpretation of American history.

    As I listened to the issues—both agreeing and disagreeing at times—I felt a particular sense of excitement, picking up viewpoints I have seldom heard since coming to Columbia.

    But he wondered how come there were so many empty seats in the lecture hall, given that it sold out. It turns out that Columbia University Democrats had obtained a large number of those tickets. They used them to protest the Girgis lecture. As Girgis delivered a talk making an argument for traditional marriage, the CUD crew stood silently and held signs protesting his point of view.

    Dontoh, the op-ed writer, was annoyed that the CUD people not only misrepresented on campus what the conference was about, but also denied others the chance to hear what was said. He hasn’t yet learned that extremism in defense of gay rights is no vice.
    A reader who teaches in a university sent that item, and writes:

    Thought you would find this interesting. It is anecdotal, but it confirms many of my intuitions as one of the few conservative professors on Earth: most young people have been systematically brainwashed to accept a meta-narrative about views contrary to liberalism that is simply not true. But it often seems so compelling, and it is uttered by the right and smart people, that they have never had a reason to doubt it. They have been told two things they firmly believe are non-negotiable: (1) people who reject lifestyle liberalism are either wicked or stupid; and (2) open-mindedness and tolerance are virtues fundamental to the common good. You would think the latter would cancel the former, but it doesn’t. Why? Because the former ensures that the latter will not be extended to a contrary meta-narrative. It keeps guard over liberalism so that it seems, on the one hand, generous and affirming, while it functions no different in principle than religious dogmas that to its adherents seem open and liberating but to outsiders constraining and narrow. This is why conservatives are bewildered as to how a liberal can say they believe in “marriage equality” while at the same time not extend that understanding of equality to other free institutions, e.g., churches, synagogues, the Boy Scouts, etc. If “marriage quality” is a good for the institution of marriage, why isn’t it a good for other institutions? But such a concession would put the two dogmas in tension, and that can’t happen. So, for example, we are to believe in “marriage equality,” but not “school equality.” For the latter would undermine the indoctrination monopoly, which continually reinforces the two dogmas as non-negotiable first principles.
    More:

    This student from Columbia had a chance to peek under the curtain and see that dogma (1) is false. But if dogma (1) is false, then liberal coercion on lifestyle matters is unjustified, and thus unjust. This is why (1) is the greatest of the two liberal dogmas. This is why, I believe, a sustained, careful, generous, gracious, winsome, and intelligent articulation of conservatism—although it may not win the culture war in the short run, or even the near long run—is the only way to chip away at the two dogmas. It will cost some people elections and careers (and speaking from personal experience, I narrowly escaped that fate), but it is the only way out of the abyss. Make your case, do it intelligently, winsomely, and with a generous spirit, and students, like the one at Columbia, will take notice. They may not give up liberalism, but they will likely give up tyranny.

  6. #16
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    That's the best? The 20th century has a lot better examples of leftist thought policing. Y'know, war and oppression. That kind of thing. Etc.

    I agree that that's a dick move, but I just think it's funny if that's what gets American conservatives riled up. It's a testament to our country that we usually don't deal with much worse than underhanded dick moves.

  7. #17
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    It's not the act that is important, its the teachers response to it in the article that's so provocative.

  8. #18
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Hmm as always there are people of intelligence and stupidity on all sides. It's probably a flaw in my extremely subjectivised view of the world that stops me making an assessment of something based upon the group that an individual sides with.

    That's not a dig by the way, at some level we have to stand by groupings in order to get any kind of sense out of the issues at hand. If every person represented themselves as an individual party of one, we could never achieve any political progress at all.

    Nonetheless I find it difficult to tar people based upon one side of a political spectrum or another.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  9. #19
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Here we call someone who is being difficult in the face of authority, "bolshy". I wonder if our 'bolshy' and the 'Bolshoi' are the same. It would throw a whole new light on the Bolshoi Ballet.
    I guess they are the same. Indo-European word, universal. Poly- in Greek. (We have an old Indo-European loan: paljon. It means much.) Variables: big, grand, much, majority, great.
    Bolshoi Ballet is Grand Ballet.

  10. #20
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Here we call someone who is being difficult in the face of authority, "bolshy". I wonder if our 'bolshy' and the 'Bolshoi' are the same. It would throw a whole new light on the Bolshoi Ballet.
    I guess they are the same. Indo-European word, universal. Poly- in Greek. (We have an old Indo-European loan: paljon. It means much.) Variables: big, grand, much, majority, great.
    Bolshoi Ballet is Grand Ballet.

Similar Threads

  1. Free Speech and Poetry
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2012, 04:34 AM
  2. The Couch and Free Association
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-04-2011, 10:58 PM
  3. Yet another Islamist atrocity against religious freedom and free speech...
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 09:01 PM
  4. Europe's war on free speech and its consequences
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 07:07 PM
  5. Forget Big Brother: Facebook, Corporations, and the End of Free Speech
    By speculative in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 11:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO