|
Post by Entimos on Apr 28, 2017 9:36:28 GMT -7
The totalitarian left is emboldened by its selective suppression of speech. Just as scary is the deluded thought process that inspires its Stalinism.
Recognizing its inability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, the left has been chipping away for years at the concept of free speech. You have to give leftists points for cleverness, not to mention persistence, because they don't openly advocate censoring conservative speech as such. They pretend to be protecting some greater good or preventing imminent harm to certain groups.
......the thought control zealots are now coming up with even more bizarre rationalizations to curb competitive speech. In a recent New York Times op-ed, New York University provost Ulrich Baer argues: "The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections -- not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities -- should not mean that someone's humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned."
....I urge you not to miss the most stunning aspect of Baer's specious analysis. The thrust of the left's message against conservatives across the board is that because of our toxic ideas, we should be discredited and delegitimized "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas."
Just as leftists support the commission of violence in the name of preventing speech that could arguably lead to it, they would muzzle us because through our speech, we would discredit and then effectively muzzle them. Insanity.
We don't want to muzzle liberals; we want to defeat them in the marketplace of ideas. We don't want to commit violence against them, but they often want to do so against us. Boy, how they project.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2017/04/28/liberal-thought-police-getting-scarier-n2319367
|
|
|
Post by osha on Apr 28, 2017 14:15:07 GMT -7
This can actually be summed up easily:
Liberal- I believe in free speech as long as it aligns with my ideology.
|
|
|
Post by John Doe on Apr 28, 2017 16:36:17 GMT -7
it's the Same for any political party. i refer to twittler in chief and his fake news rantings for anything that does not align with his beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Apr 28, 2017 16:44:26 GMT -7
Yep, that's true.
I believe we could solve many of our problems if we would just come together and discuss the issues and come to agreement. Bickering back and forth does nothing at all except cause gridlock that benefits nobody at all.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Apr 28, 2017 23:07:15 GMT -7
Conservatives up to Richard Nixon tried to engage in the marketplace of ideas. After that, they recognized that was a losing proposition for them. Today's conservatism is so intellectually bankrupt that they don't even make an attempt anymore at rational argument. It's all propaganda, all the time.
I remember the Carter/Reagan debates. Carter was a smart man, though without much skill as a politician. He came to the debates with a command of the facts, and insight into the issues. Reagan had nothing but his slogans. His standard answer to Carter's well-thought-out positions supported by facts was "There you go again", as if having a brain was a disqualification.
In 1994, Newt Gingrich drove the final nail into the coffin of idea-based conservatism. He directed GOP candidates in the elections that year to never engage in discussion of issues - instead, he told them, make character attacks and appeals to emotions. It worked, and that has been the the First Commandment of Conservatism ever since.
Now we have a total know-nothing president who can't even put together a coherent fact-based sentence on policy.
I do note with pleasure the developing situation at the Heritage Foundation, which tried for a long time to keep conservatism moored to a rationally defensible foundation. That effort ended when Jim DeMint was named president, and set about making it into a promoter of Tea Party activism. It appears that the old guard principle-oriented conservatives may have regained the upper hand, and DeMint will probably be fired in a matter of days or weeks.
Entimos's post above is one of the most frequently used items in the right wing playbook. It begins "The totalitarian left ..." signalling its intention to rely on name calling rather than rational argument. It's a pep talk to the choir, not a discussion of free speech.
The Republican Party has been reduced to two ideas - cut taxes for the rich and discontinue govt oversight of the corporate world. On all other issues, their position is a knee-jerk opposition to any idea that Democrats have supported.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Apr 29, 2017 12:45:13 GMT -7
Of course and then we wonder why we even have Liberals. You have the baby boomers who grew up with tons of opportunity. College was cheap and affordable, housing was cheap, transportation was cheap, most mothers were home with the children and so on. Now, we are telling young people to do the right thing and get educated and the job prospects keep dwindling for the educated. The answer from the right? Go to school for industries you may dislike because that might be where the jobs are. In other words, grow up hating life working in a position you never wanted to because that is all that's left. While the same people spewing this garbage enjoy their job and love their life because they had choice in a growing economy. Then these young people see the ever rising price of medical insurance. Premiums rise and deductibles rise while few of us normal peons even have any money saved. A $6000 dollar deductible? Really? www.cnbc.com/2016/10/03/how-much-americans-at-every-age-have-in-their-savings-accounts.htmlThen the republicans refuse to acknowledge the people are suffering and inflation robs the saver and the worker. If wages followed inflation people today would be making north of 20 bucks and hour. But no, you have the right preaching that people are not trying hard enough. Then they look at older people who have paid into social security their whole life and they want to cut the "entitlements" to give tax cuts to the rich. Or they want to raise the age to such a high number that you die before ever collecting a dime. So we have low job prospects, high college costs, outrageous medical costs, social security constantly threatened, trickle down economics for the rich (which never created one job), housing that is to expensive and forces young people to live with parents, people who have left the job market because of lack of opportunity, world being destroyed by climate change and the right ignoring science and the list can go on.... And then we wonder why we have a seemly crazy far left wing of the democrat party. These people are not rural bible thumpers and are not 4th generation farmers, they have real problems and they are battling a system that has stacked the cards against them.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Apr 29, 2017 18:38:03 GMT -7
Those are two interesting attempts to justify liberal policies. Why don't you just tell the truth?
Liberals hope to convince folks that they cannot survive or prosper without government help. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Apr 29, 2017 21:41:26 GMT -7
Those are two interesting attempts to justify liberal policies. Why don't you just tell the truth? Liberals hope to convince folks that they cannot survive or prosper without government help. It's that simple. Well, it's true. When the government has kept creating policy that has buried our young folks, who is responsible for the problem? Government gets into giving student loans and costs skyrocket. Government keeps trade agreements and jobs suffer. Government messes with healthcare and keeps costs rising. Government favors large corporations and regulations show it. Government keeps wages low to benefit the wealthy. And the list could go on.... Watch Where to invade next and look at how much poorer countries are doing much better then we are.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Apr 30, 2017 11:29:13 GMT -7
Liberals rioting against a speaker because of their political beliefs. Is this going to be the next PC law to include politicism as a hate crime?
|
|
|
Post by osha on Apr 30, 2017 12:16:26 GMT -7
Liberals rioting against a speaker because of their political beliefs. Is this going to be the next PC law to include politicism as a hate crime? I am torn on that issue. I support free speech but I should not have to listen to someone in Walmart or have someone forcibly come into my home and speech in a way I don't support. College kids are paying much money for their education. Should they as consumers be forced to listen to someone they don't like? It's a catch 22 in my book. On one hand I support free speech and on the other I support the right to also get what I want from what I pay for. IMHO, politics should not be involved in school anyways.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Apr 30, 2017 13:22:33 GMT -7
Those are two interesting attempts to justify liberal policies. Why don't you just tell the truth? Liberals hope to convince folks that they cannot survive or prosper without government help. It's that simple. This is an example of how conservatives lost their intellectual credibility. You compose a strawman, and then claim that the strawman is actually liberalism. That's not competing in the marketplace of ideas. Try a different strategy. Try to listen to what we say, and respond to that.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Apr 30, 2017 14:04:41 GMT -7
Liberals rioting against a speaker because of their political beliefs. Is this going to be the next PC law to include politicism as a hate crime? I am torn on that issue. I support free speech but I should not have to listen to someone in Walmart or have someone forcibly come into my home and speech in a way I don't support. College kids are paying much money for their education. Should they as consumers be forced to listen to someone they don't like? It's a catch 22 in my book. On one hand I support free speech and on the other I support the right to also get what I want from what I pay for. IMHO, politics should not be involved in school anyways. You should not have to listen to anything you don't want to listen to. You can leave WalMart, close your front door, and students could choose to not go to the event. That's freedom. Some protesters push the limits of free speech by blocking traffic or sidewalks & doorways. You're free do disagree, but not to be disagreeable to others. We do not have the right to riot or infringe upon others. If the violence doesn't stop, you can bet that "politicism" will become a social crime, just like racism, the gender thing, sexual orientation, and religion. Where did all of the adults go?
|
|
|
Post by osha on Apr 30, 2017 14:13:50 GMT -7
I am torn on that issue. I support free speech but I should not have to listen to someone in Walmart or have someone forcibly come into my home and speech in a way I don't support. College kids are paying much money for their education. Should they as consumers be forced to listen to someone they don't like? It's a catch 22 in my book. On one hand I support free speech and on the other I support the right to also get what I want from what I pay for. IMHO, politics should not be involved in school anyways. You should not have to listen to anything you don't want to listen to. You can leave WalMart, close your front door, and students could choose to not go to the event. That's freedom. Some protesters push the limits of free speech by blocking traffic or sidewalks & doorways. You're free do disagree, but not to be disagreeable to others. We do not have the right to riot or infringe upon others. If the violence doesn't stop, you can bet that "politicism" will become a social crime, just like racism, the gender thing, sexual orientation, and religion. Where did all of the adults go? I see it a bit of a different way. If a college student attends a college, they are paying for that college. They are keeping the lights on, paying for the place where the event will be held, paying for the chairs for people to sit in and so forth. Unfairly looking at someone and telling them to pay for something they don't support is wrong. They are trying to slam the door. The bad thing is the only way to get things done anymore is to be loud about it. I don't agree with riots and destroying property and such, but such actions did earn the desired outcome. There needs to be more direct communication in this country and if there was, things like riots would happen much less. These closed avenues of resolution do little to solve any problem.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Apr 30, 2017 14:39:55 GMT -7
Telling them to pay for something you don't support is wrong? Just like you can't have an all white school, you can't have an all liberal school. Students should hear all views and make their own decisions. If they don't want to hear a certain view then don't attend the event. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others shouldn't have the opportunity to participate.
Remember the last time a group of conservatives rioted to cancel speaking events of liberals?
Me neither.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Apr 30, 2017 15:04:35 GMT -7
So your saying that one group should have the right to free speech while the other don't?
Your saying I should allow Nancy Pelosi into my house (who I can't stand) and I should shut up about it?
Baby boomers are probably a bit to old to riot lol.
Trump supporters have done their fair share of bull.
|
|