In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I consider myself a classical liberal, but I find that I am agreeing with the left less and less these days (though at the same time hardly agreeing with the right on anything). The level of discourse coming from certain segments of the left has degraded to the point where they are just hurling shit and seeing what sticks. Instead of discussing and challenging ideas in an open and honest fashion the strategy seems to be to try and destroy people's reputations and misrepresent their views.
I dislike the far right in this country because I think they are wrong on nearly every issue; I'm beginning to dislike the left just as much because of their refusal to deal with them.
EDIT: On further thinking this might not be that unusual. It seems that many people from all political leanings are becoming disillusioned. I suppose this is bound to happen when there are only two real parties in our current system. You get lumped in with half the country and find that many of the people you've been grouped with are bedfellows you would rather not have.
On April 23 2016 22:47 Liquid`Drone wrote: Everyone needs to be conscious about what they say and where they say it. But I certainly think it's problematic that I, as a job-seeking teacher, am not comfortable with publicly stating that I think marijuana should be legalized or that smoking a couple joints really isn't a big deal. I'm not even sure how comfortable I would be with posting on facebook that alcohol is significantly more dangerous than weed - even though that's just a factual statement and not my personal opinion.
I also think it's troublesome if other people feel a similar need to moderate themselves from making moderate statements questioning immigration policies. These are examples of hypersensitivity negatively shaping public discourse.
However, there is a far cry between moderate statements questioning immigration policies and statements I've actually seen have repercussions. I don't understand how a teacher can expect to teach muslims (and it's unlikely that European teachers, at least in cities, will have classes free of muslim students/pupils) while publicly stating that Islam represents evil and oppression. (The Norwegian leader of Pegida, who made such statements, lost his job because his pupils, understandably imo, had huge issues with him being supposed to teach them sociology).
At the same time, even though I don't think we're currently in a place where people have really unfairly lost their jobs for making 'politically incorrect' statements (most statement I've seen have job-repercussions has been of the 'let's beat up some shitniggers' type of racism, where I am actually completely fine with it having consequences), we must be cautious about how moderated public speech should be. This is not an easy debate, and attempting to draw a line is kind of a hopeless endeavor - certain statements are obviously not-ok and certain statements are obviously okay, but I can also think of many statements a teacher could possibly make where I would not be sure whether I'd be okay with it. Like, obviously we don't want mobs inciting violence towards minority groups - but we also don't want people to only publicly state opinions that coincide with majority opinion - then there is no longer room for debate. And while I don't really think we're at the point where 'slightly controversial, but should be okay' statements are all that negatively received (aside from the aforementioned drug case ), it's definitely important that we keep track of where we are going..
Too much reasonableness. I do think the line should be really really skewed in favor of protecting freedom of speech. What bothers me is institutionalized sanctions for jokes and/or innapropiate comments, which should just be socially sanctioned like everywhere else (plus if you teach for 20 years you will most likely do/say something that can be misresepresented at on point)
On April 23 2016 23:23 Kickstart wrote: I consider myself a classical liberal, but I find that I am agreeing with the left less and less these days (though at the same time hardly agreeing with the right on anything). The level of discourse coming from certain segments of the left has degraded to the point where they are just hurling shit and seeing what sticks. Instead of discussing and challenging ideas in an open and honest fashion the strategy seems to be to try and destroy people's reputations and misrepresent their views.
I dislike the far right in this country because I think they are wrong on nearly every issue; I'm beginning to dislike the left just as much because of their refusal to deal with them.
EDIT: On further thinking this might not be that unusual. It seems that many people from all political leanings are becoming disillusioned. I suppose this is bound to happen when there are only two real parties in our current system. You get lumped in with half the country and find that many of the people you've been grouped with are bedfellows you would rather not have.
This is why its been said that Bernie and Trump are opposite sides of the same coin. Support for them is coming about because of mistrust, fear, and hate. Its why trump rallies are almost as hateful in person as berniebros are hateful online.
On April 23 2016 23:23 Kickstart wrote: I consider myself a classical liberal, but I find that I am agreeing with the left less and less these days (though at the same time hardly agreeing with the right on anything). The level of discourse coming from certain segments of the left has degraded to the point where they are just hurling shit and seeing what sticks. Instead of discussing and challenging ideas in an open and honest fashion the strategy seems to be to try and destroy people's reputations and misrepresent their views.
I dislike the far right in this country because I think they are wrong on nearly every issue; I'm beginning to dislike the left just as much because of their refusal to deal with them.
EDIT: On further thinking this might not be that unusual. It seems that many people from all political leanings are becoming disillusioned. I suppose this is bound to happen when there are only two real parties in our current system. You get lumped in with half the country and find that many of the people you've been grouped with are bedfellows you would rather not have.
This is why its been said that Bernie and Trump are opposite sides of the same coin. Support for them is coming about because of mistrust, fear, and hate. Its why trump rallies are almost as hateful in person as berniebros are hateful online.
A good assessment. Still, even in this presidential race, I think Sanders is the best candidate (he is the most classically liberal, some might say too revolutionary but as we have established it seems both sides want to shake things up). At the same time I can't stand some (most?) of his supporters. But perhaps I am doing what farv described and paying too much attention to the clowns. It becomes difficult to gauge how much that is to blame when it seems that every main media outlet is showcasing only those clowns.
I agree with that Gotunk, except I don't think there can really be such a thing as too much reasonableness, and I'd probably only go with 'really skewed' rather than 'really really skewed'.
And yeah, I agree that speech should almost always have social rather than institutionalized sanctions - I do however think teachers are in a somewhat special position because we depend so much on having respect from students and parents that making statements that make this respect impossible to maintain is always going to negatively impact our job performance.
But then the problem is that people have far too much of a tendency to 'lose respect' for someone for making statements they (vehemently) disagree with - which relates to the hypersensitivity I find very problematic.
On April 23 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote: The regressive PC left would exist whether or not Milo was a public figure who held talks for them to protest.
The right is much more regressive than the left, and "PC" is pure buzzword.
It means "stop liking what I don't like" and/or "stop being a decent human being". In my experience you hear it most from neo-reactionary types, white supremacists, MRAs and so on.
Your experience is an anecdote. "Regressive left" means a specific faction of the left, it doesn't refer to the entire left, or that would be redundant.
LONDON – At their Friday press conference here, President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron together used the phrase “special relationship” more than a dozen times. At times they cast it in almost romantic terms: Obama professed his “love” for Winston Churchill. Cameron declared his “passion” for the Anglo-American partnership.
But when Obama delivers a grand address about Europe on Monday, he’ll do it from Germany — not Britain.
The first European country to join American strikes against the Islamic State in Syria? Not Britain but France, which plays a bigger military role in the anti-ISIS campaign that Obama calls his top priority.
When Obama wants to crank up pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin, he calls German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It was then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy who persuaded him to bomb Libya in 2011.
Though Obama’s affection for Great Britain is clear — on Friday he called Queen Elizabeth “truly one of my favorite people” — it’s hard to name a way it has driven his foreign policy.
"There's a big difference" between Obama's relationship with the UK and that of predecessors like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, said James Rubin, a former State Department spokesman in the Clinton administration who now lives in London. In past years, "the special relationship had a more powerful impact on international relations, definitely," Rubin said.
Obama aides insist that the rising influence of Germany and France doesn’t make Britain any less important to the U.S., they say — or the relationship any less special.
And British officials note the key supporting role their country has played in everything from Obama’s Iran nuclear deal to fighting Ebola.
On April 23 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote: The regressive PC left would exist whether or not Milo was a public figure who held talks for them to protest.
The right is much more regressive than the left, and "PC" is pure buzzword.
It means "stop liking what I don't like" and/or "stop being a decent human being". In my experience you hear it most from neo-reactionary types, white supremacists, MRAs and so on.
Your experience is an anecdote. "Regressive left" means a specific faction of the left, it doesn't refer to the entire left, or that would be redundant.
'Regressive left' is a word people on 4chan made up, it doesn't actually mean anything. It's like 'cultural Marxism '
A made up word can be useful, but that would require everyone knowing what it means. A regressive leftist is the type that attacks the person and not the idea. The type that engages in character assassination and purposefully misrepresent others. The type that have created safe spaces and trigger warnings, creating an environment where ideas can no longer be discussed in an open and honest fashion. The type that get upset over what costumes people decide to wear, and the type that try to get people who disagree with them fired from their jobs.
Sure the word is made up, but such is the case with every word.....
I personally find 'regressive left' easier to type than the whole first paragraph I typed, but anyone who didn't know that 'regressive left' referred to a specific set of peoples with specific views and behaviors is just trying to make this conversation more difficult. Everyone should know what people mean when using the term at this point. Whether or not it is used validly or if it describes a certain person or ideal honestly is a different question, but the definition seems rather clear.
On April 23 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote: The regressive PC left would exist whether or not Milo was a public figure who held talks for them to protest.
The right is much more regressive than the left, and "PC" is pure buzzword.
It means "stop liking what I don't like" and/or "stop being a decent human being". In my experience you hear it most from neo-reactionary types, white supremacists, MRAs and so on.
Your experience is an anecdote. "Regressive left" means a specific faction of the left, it doesn't refer to the entire left, or that would be redundant.
'Regressive left' is a word people on 4chan made up, it doesn't actually mean anything. It's like 'cultural Marxism '
Came from 4chan? tell me more about that please. Funny though talking about made up words, its people like you that made ones like Islamophobe, they are both equally as silly.
Cultural marxism is certainly a complete bullshit term, but I don't agree that regressive left is quite on the same scale. I'm inclined to agree that it's rarely used in a genuine manner, but I actually can agree with oBlade that it can have some uses. Like, specifically, if you consider free speech one of the most important progressive values (I can agree with this), and your argument is that some leftists are so obsessed with protecting groups from harmful speech that they are stifling free speech more than they are contributing to non-discrimination (also progressive), then describing this group of leftists as 'regressive left' is fair enough. It hinges on genuinely accepting that this is only a small subset of leftists, and I agree that I have seen the entire left characterized as 'regressive left'.
So it's like, while it does kinda trigger the same sentiments as cultural marxism does because it's often used by a similar group of people, unlike cultural marxism I think regressive left can have some legitimate applications.
Again, this entire thing annoys me to no end as someone who identifies as a classical liberal. The entire idea of liberalism is to oppose totalitarianism, to hold up the ideals of liberty and equality, and to fight for these things in the marketplace of ideas. Yet there are people who claim to be liberals who have become very totalitarian in the way they conduct themselves, and would rather shut down the dissemination of ideas than foster it.
On April 23 2016 06:56 Mohdoo wrote: This is how you handle BLM. Beautifully done, based milo.
"You hate yourself! You hate yourself!"
...
"Thank you for that very intelligent question"
Haha, I love Milo.
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
I understand the idea ; it's sure easy to be bored by the rhetoric of some people (a minority) that consider themselves as defendors of the "black lives matter" movement, but it is also sure easy to be bored by the arguments of people such as Milo. What you consider to be a waste disposer can easily be seen as a polluter with simply a different perspective. Think a little about what it means for public debate when someone like Milo is valued for his "purpose" ... The debate never took place, the exchanges are empty, everybody can turn back and feel safe knowing their beliefs are untouched and "truth" - the only thing that could reconcile people to a certain extent - is nowhere to be found.
you've never had the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion
Social repercussion is social, not made by some minority within the minority that terrorize everybody. You should be allowed to say whatever you please, as long as its not asking for people to be killed or attacked. Think about what it means for a teacher when you can't say some things, discuss some argument, because you fear that your students will badly respond to it...
Uh? It seems normal to me that a teacher, like anyone, should face consequences of their words. I mean, do you really expect to be able to say that Black men are stupid to a racially mixed class and to a 100% white, rich, far-right leaning class, and be seen in the same way? Do you really expect to be able to say that all pharmacists always seek to maximize their profits even if it means harming the patients to children of pharmacists (true story), and get away with it fine? Do you really expect to be able to insult a student based on his race (true story) and suffer no repercussion?
Saying something is an action like any other. If your freedom concerning usual actions is limited by the way people will react to it, why shouldn't your freedom of speech be limited too?
And yes, social repercussions are social. Social is not synonymous with society, however ; any social group, be it a family, a classroom, a syndicate/union, an association, whatever, can produce social repercussions.
So for you it's normal that teacher in philosophy can't present the argument that god does not exist, like many philosopher did... This idea that words are performative is galvauded (sure, Charlie Hebdo's caricature were on par with what the Kouachi brothers did right ?) : freedom is being able to say two plus two equal four, said Orwell. Whatever the feeling of others, it should be okay to tell the truth. If what you say is factually untrue, then you should be reprimanded for sure. People who feel "insulted" by a comment should first look at themselves and try to understand why they feel that way, they could gain a lot from it, in maturity and knowledge of themselves : that's how you grow.
And yes, social repercussions are social. Social is not synonymous with society, however ; any social group, be it a family, a classroom, a syndicate/union, an association, whatever, can produce social repercussions.
And the equality of mankind as a value is refuted by racist social groups. This does not mean that institutions, such as a university, should accept their reclamation and punish a teacher that argue that all men are equal ; repercussion are social which exactly mean that "the society" (which is an abstraction but whatever) make them. It is a collective process that goes from individuals and groups to institutions through negotiations and power play - it's problematic when a specific group have such an ascendant on institutions that they can enforce their own vision on every possible topic ; it create hatred and resentment.
Hmm, I think there are two different things in here. A teacher, as long as he presents the idea that god does not exist (or that god exists, or that it is useless to argue about whether god exists or not), should not be prevented (or, more exactly, feel prevented, because do we really have examples of teachers being fired or being beaten up/threatened by its students for presenting such an idea?) from doing so. However, a teacher stating this as a fact or stating their personal opinion on the matter should be ready to face the consequences. Just like, obviously, a history teacher is never going to be punished for explaining the tenants of Nazism, the good old Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fürher, to their students ; however, if he says that "it's a pretty cool concept, you know" or something like that, that'll obviously be perceived differently.
Words are very much performative. Which does not mean they equate to physical aggression, thank you for making me say what I never said. But implying that words have no consequences, thus that we should be free of any responsability when using them, is basically saying that words are meaningless ; and if words are meaningless, then language is meaningless, and then mankind is a failure from the very begining. As for Orwell's quote, yes it's very beautiful, much like any quote. Now, you're forgetting that a vast majority of what any individual says everyday is not truth but their own truth : a white supremacist who feels that Black people are animals very much thinks that he's in the truth, not that he's lying by thinking/saying that. I won't even comment the "grow some balls and brush it off" section : while it is obvious that that would be the ideal situation, it is just as obvious that humans, in general, do not seem to react that way.
And I agree with that part about power plays in institutions. What I was saying was that, if you offend a given group, you'll be facing repercussions from that group, that can range from simple loss of reputation to more serious stuff if, indeed, that group holds power.
Following a tense exchange with Fox New host Sean Hannity this week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) took another swipe at the network's coverage of Donald Trump and accusations that he's wrangling delegates.
While appearing on "The Dom Giordano Program" in Philadelphia Friday, Cruz spoke on accusations of jockeying for delegates, according to BuzzFeed, and a conversation on that subject which put him in hot water with Hannity.
“They know it’s not true,” Cruz said, when asked if his strategy was unethical, according to BuzzFeed. “Donald doesn’t handle losing well and when we loses he cries and he screams and he whines and he curses and he insults everybody.”
Cruz went on to criticize the editorial decisions of Fox News and who they are "rooting for."
“Well listen, Fox News has got to decide what stories they want to air and what stories they want to tell,” Cruz said, according to BuzzFeed. “I’m not going to worry about who they’re rooting for and what surrogates they put on and what messages they push. I’m gonna focus on my own positive message.”
Every time the "oppression" of "PC culture" comes up, I'm reminded how little folks here know about being black. 200+ years of black people saying all of the worst ramifications of "PC culture" are being endured by them and it only takes ~generation of white people being ever so slightly restricted and it's "White Genocide" right around the corner.
There is real terror being inflicted on people, often by government officials, (see Flint, NYC, Ferguson, etc...).Anyone who thinks "PC culture" even approaches oppression, wouldn't last a week under the oppression millions in this country actually live under (and they likely ignore).
On April 24 2016 01:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: Cultural marxism is certainly a complete bullshit term, but I don't agree that regressive left is quite on the same scale. I'm inclined to agree that it's rarely used in a genuine manner, but I actually can agree with oBlade that it can have some uses. Like, specifically, if you consider free speech one of the most important progressive values (I can agree with this), and your argument is that some leftists are so obsessed with protecting groups from harmful speech that they are stifling free speech more than they are contributing to non-discrimination (also progressive), then describing this group of leftists as 'regressive left' is fair enough. It hinges on genuinely accepting that this is only a small subset of leftists, and I agree that I have seen the entire left characterized as 'regressive left'.
So it's like, while it does kinda trigger the same sentiments as cultural marxism does because it's often used by a similar group of people, unlike cultural marxism I think regressive left can have some legitimate applications.
But Left-wingers aren't libertarians. They don't need to hold radical positions on free speech and with the exception of the US there is no such tradition on the left or anywhere for that matter. I don't see the regression, left wing politics isn't just about insulting people on the street and smoking weed in public. The problem is rather that in modern times some people think that they identify with left-wing politics but actually are firmly on the right side of the political spectrum. It's like the whole 'BernieBro' thing. There are a ton of people who self-identify as politically left, especially on social media and so on but actually are ready to switch to right-wing positions very fast.
On April 24 2016 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Every time the "oppression" of "PC culture" comes up, I'm reminded how little folks here know about being black. 200+ years of black people saying all of the worst ramifications of "PC culture" are being endured by them and it only takes ~generation of white people being ever so slightly restricted and it's "White Genocide" right around the corner.
There is real terror being inflicted on people, often by government officials, (see Flint, NYC, Ferguson, etc...).Anyone who thinks "PC culture" even approaches oppression, wouldn't last a week under the oppression millions in this country actually live under (and they likely ignore).
There are some of us who oppose tyranny in all its forms. Both tyranny and gross misconduct perpetrated by the government, and the tyranny of trying to shut down conversation. The 'regressive left' types aren't interested in solving these issues you are bringing up, they are interested in shouting matches and not letting anyone be heard. From the black lives protesters who shout the entire time in an attempt to block any actual conversations, to the vapid trigger warning and safe-space types, to the 'any criticism of Islam is islamophobia and racism'. All of these things are tyrannical in that they attempt to stop anything that they disagree with from being expressed, and in engaging in character assassination against those who don't agree with their every opinion.
On April 24 2016 01:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: Cultural marxism is certainly a complete bullshit term, but I don't agree that regressive left is quite on the same scale. I'm inclined to agree that it's rarely used in a genuine manner, but I actually can agree with oBlade that it can have some uses. Like, specifically, if you consider free speech one of the most important progressive values (I can agree with this), and your argument is that some leftists are so obsessed with protecting groups from harmful speech that they are stifling free speech more than they are contributing to non-discrimination (also progressive), then describing this group of leftists as 'regressive left' is fair enough. It hinges on genuinely accepting that this is only a small subset of leftists, and I agree that I have seen the entire left characterized as 'regressive left'.
So it's like, while it does kinda trigger the same sentiments as cultural marxism does because it's often used by a similar group of people, unlike cultural marxism I think regressive left can have some legitimate applications.
But Left-wingers aren't libertarians. They don't need to hold radical positions on free speech and with the exception of the US there is no such tradition on the left or anywhere for that matter. I don't see the regression, left wing politics isn't just about insulting people on the street and smoking weed in public. The problem is rather that in modern times some people think that they identify with left-wing politics but actually are firmly on the right side of the political spectrum. It's like the whole 'BernieBro' thing. There are a ton of people who self-identify as politically left, especially on social media and so on but actually are ready to switch to right-wing positions very fast.
Keep in mind in America "the left" thought ending someones career because they said they loved the wrong sex was a "PC" thing for the government to do just ~20 years ago.
What (typically) straight sys white men are experiencing, is just the inability to perpetuate the one-sided PC culture that used to protect them. It's not oppression or tyranny, or terror... Lord knows what the wailing would sound like should it actually be those things.
On April 24 2016 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Every time the "oppression" of "PC culture" comes up, I'm reminded how little folks here know about being black. 200+ years of black people saying all of the worst ramifications of "PC culture" are being endured by them and it only takes ~generation of white people being ever so slightly restricted and it's "White Genocide" right around the corner.
There is real terror being inflicted on people, often by government officials, (see Flint, NYC, Ferguson, etc...).Anyone who thinks "PC culture" even approaches oppression, wouldn't last a week under the oppression millions in this country actually live under (and they likely ignore).
I think you're the first person to use the word "oppression" so I don't see how this isn't one big strawman (especially after how eager you were to connect opposition to political correctness to race relations). Something can be bad without it being oppression ("oppression" is much more the language of the left).
EPT
), it's definitely important that we keep track of where we are going..
