iiandyiiii speaks for the vast majority of liberals here. Unfortunately he doesn’t speak for quite as many conservatives, who commit, if I understand correctly, the vast majority of political violence in this country.
It helps to actually endorse concepts such as freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of speech than merely oppose violent restrictions on such.
Let’s reword this slightly. Let’s take this following point of view as an interesting hypothetical:
I may not think Islam should be banned. However, I have no problem with people refusing to deal with people who articulate concepts associated with Islam. I have no problem with people loudly and aggressively critiquing those who express Islamic tenets. I have no problem with shunning, boycotting, and economically crippling those who practice Islam.
Now what is the real effect of that? Do those who follow Islam really have freedom to practice their religion when the consequences of such are real economic damage and implicit threats? I’d say no.
The government actually steps in and prevents some of these actions by labeling Islam a member of a protected set. Why? Because practically speaking an organized faction of society can and in many way does negatively impact others’ freedoms.
What does this mean? It means that even if you don’t agree with a particular expression of freedom, working to promote the concept that such freedom is necessary to our type of society is exceedingly important. Even if that means so-called incendiary speakers get to be heard.
It’s good that lukewarm condemnations of violence can sometimes be extracted from the ironically illiberal left. It would be nice to see robust support for fundamental liberties.
On a side note I am curious how long it will be til some of the hypothetical statements above in paragraph 3 are taken out of context. Not necessarily by you of course.
Because this nation was founded on the concept of freedom of religion? In fact, the foundational document of our nation might have words to that effect in it somewhere.
However, I do like your implied idea that it should be forbidden to boycott a business you don’t like, and I take this opportunity to remind you that a) my business will ship worthless garbage to you for a hefty sum, and b) I am a horrible bigot
I’ve done that before, but I’m happy to so again – I endorse these concepts.
If one person, or a few people, do this? Then yes, since that’s already the case – there are Americans who shun/refuse economic interactions with Muslims. If every non-Muslim in America did this? Then no, they wouldn’t, functionally, have freedom of religion.
Including freedom to say “don’t shop here!”, as well as “quit whining and mind your own business”, or “out of my way – I need some kebabs!”.
Though I can’t quite tell what you’re advocating for – that government should outlaw such boycotts? Or not?
As for me, I don’t believe that government can or should outlaw speech about boycotts.
Your “illiberal left” crack is silly – there is plenty of such robust support, from myself and plenty of other liberals.
Alrighty then. Not sure what you are saying but I respect your right to do so.
And I never implied you shouldn’t boycott.
If it is silly then why would President Obama feel the need to say the same thing in essence? This isn’t a make believe, imaginary, fantastical scenario. This is real life.
So that he agrees with you about the importance of free speech is proof that the left is “illiberal”? How does that follow? What if he never said this – would this be proof that the left is not illiberal?
Or are you just saying that some liberals (not all) are shitty (e.g. against free speech)? If so, fine – but that’s such a trivial statement that you could make it about literally any political group, including conservatives.
Sure, claims are made. I’m interested in proof.
Ooh! Ooh! Teacher, I know this one!
It’s because the real-world consequences of not preventing these actions is that folks who practice Islam will suffer pervasive discrimination otherwise. They’ve got relatively little power in our society on this axis.
Compare that to Yiannopolos. There are good reasons not to act like a raging asshole at his events, but ensuring he has a platform to spew his hatred isn’t among them: the shitheel has ample platform to spew his hatred.
(bolding mine)
What if it isn’t accurate? And why don’t you want to allow people to discuss what other people say?
Perhaps in some subset of the world, yes. Islam has plenty of power worldwide and majority Islamic countries aren’t noted for their liberty.
That said, if it’s given that the concept of advancing liberty is desired then promoting a society where people can peacefully assemble and worship whatever god, critter, or tree they wish is generally a good thing.
Ensuring? Yiannopolus had every right to be where he was going to be and speak as he wished. His audience had every right to listen. The protesters had no right to engage in rioting, assault, and destruction of property. Several should be in jail now. The police failed, badly, at their job.
You are making an inaccurate accusation. Discuss away. After zombie Hitler speaks or mumbles. Don’t prevent, with violence, the speech from occurring. Or accept a society where the most violent dictate what freedoms are acceptable for all.
Here’s a “peaceful” PC advocate. A so-called college professor having a melt down at a speaking event. This specimen is calling for violent assault and even advocating that the state enact the violence. Hmm…
Starts around 10 mins in. - YouTube
This is what I’m talking about. PC has done jumped the shark.
And you are obviously one of the people who give PC such a bad name. I’d lay odds that you’d jump on someone in a heartbeat and accuse them of bigotry if they used the wrong term inadvertently. No such animal as inadvertence with your sort, everything is deliberate and intended. The whole world is less pure and virtuous than yourself.
You should read Holy Willie’s Prayer by Burns. You might recognize yourself in it.
Can you define the term you’re using, please?
Hell hath no fury like a snowflake frustrated!
But apart from that, with professors like that who needs schooling? Just act like you did at the age of two, yell “fuck” a lot, and you’ll be pretty much set for life in modern day America as either an educator yourself (given that you’ll lack sufficient proficiency in spelling, grammar, math and writing skills to find employment in the corporate part of America) or as a lifelong government dependee.
But cheer up. In another three decades or so the last of us who grew up to be adults will have died off and you’ll have become the norm. It’s an open question as to how you’ll survive in a world where no one has the education, work ethic or maturity to support themselves. Maybe life will become like was the other time liberals got their way and communism sprung up. You’ll pretend to work and the government will pretend to pay you. But trust, it’ll be bleak however it shakes out.
Oh, it’ll be bleak sure enough.
I’ve often found it strange that liberals can’t see the dangers to them within their own ranks. The extremists (and their opinions are moving nearer to the norm each day) who won’t tolerate hearing opinions they disagree with (like those at UC Berkeley), who demand ‘safe spaces’ for students lest their tender ears be offended, the microaggression merchants, etc etc etc. Do liberals really want to live in a world where clowns like these are calling the shots? A world far more like 1984 and Big Brother than anything Trump could come up with? A world where you are shorn of the freedom to express your opinion, where you’re too afraid to speak out lest your words should transgress the latest dictum from on high, where to think differently is to be a pariah?
That is a terrifying prospect and all moderate liberals should find it so too.
Those in glass houses… should not elect people who instate white nationalists to positions of political power.
Y’know, it’d be one thing if we were talking about people violently rioting because someone misgendered someone else. Or because of some perceived “microaggression”.
But what we have here is a handful of radical anarchists not seemingly native to UC Berkeley violently protesting a presentation by a neo-nazi troll for whom “no one is trans, it’s a brain disease” is not in a league of its own in terms of bigoted spew coming out of his mouth. The kind of vile shitstain that should not have any platform in the national debate. Where we can entirely fairly point out that it is a fucking disgrace that he does, and that his fans are very likely, to a man, terrible people.
You appeal to a hypothetical world where these “whiners” are calling the shots, and appeal to 1984. I don’t think you understand these people, their complaints, or their goals. But never mind that. Never mind, for the moment, that virtually every mainstream liberal politician has distanced themselves from them or actively excoriated them, including the last president - “moving nearer to the norm every day” my ass. Never mind that I don’t think you’d recognize a “safe space” if you walked by it.
We live in an ACTUAL world where the blatantly racist “alt-right” is calling the shots. Where the CEO of Breitbart News is sitting in on the NSC for some godawful reason. Where a person whose sole contribution to culture is showing what an anthropomorphized 4chan /b/ would look like (answer: like the worst kind of asshole) is somehow getting book deals and speaking at universities despite (or, indeed, because) he’s a disgusting bigot. How about you remove the Trump Tower from your eye before you complain about the splinter in mine?
It’s still this utterly bizarre underdog con, where bigots get to bitch and whine about being “oppressed” because they can’t just spread their bigotry everywhere without being called on it. Please, please stop falling for it.
Oh, and by the by, I’m glad to hear about all the outrage from our right-wing friends here. Maybe we’ll hear the same the next time, say, Anita Sarkeesian gets a bomb threat called in? Y’know, not for racism or sexism or being a person who is solely famous due to being willing to be a disgusting bigot, but for the heinous crime of… saying that video games have a bit of an iffy relationship with women and that maybe it would do us all some good if we worked on that a little bit.
Of course not, and for good reason. The good conservatives in this thread know that if some black bloc anarchist assholes travel from event to event turning peaceful demonstrations into riots, those black bloc anarchists represent the entire left and show that the left hates free speech. If Yiannopolos organizes his online troll army and one of its members calls in a bomb threat a venue hosting Sarkeesian, that never happened, it’s a false flag operation by Sarkeesian herself, and it shows that the left is fundamentally dishonest and desperate for attention.
It’s win-win, you see.
Also apparently completely unrelated to this protest:
Milo Yiannopolous fan shoots protester at event.
But no, it’s exclusively a liberal problem.
I’m not a fan of excessive political correctness at all. No sensible person thinks that outright 1950s-style racism or sexism (for example) is OK or acceptable, but the PC movement has gone well beyond “Hey, don’t deliberate use horrible slurs to refer to minority groups” and turned into “Offence Bingo” with some of its more enthusiastic practioners playing “I Am More Tolerant Than You” or “I Am Better Than You”. It’s become a weapon to beat people about the head with.
Asking someone who clearly isn’t part of your country’s ethnic majority where they are from isn’t a “microaggression”, IMHO. Asking someone with a foreign accent where they are from isn’t a “microaggression”, IMHO.
It’s things like that - seeing offence where none is intended and then making the alleged offender out to be a quasi-Hitler - that give PC a bad name. It’s bashing people over the head for having “wrong” but not actually harmful opinions, or for voicing things without using the right magic words.
People have different ideas about what’s polite or reasonable but in my experience a lot of issues with PC come from people being asked to change things they do or think, for no perceived gain to themselves beyond an increase in esteem from a group of people with different political opinions.
I raised the issue in another thread about how I personally didn’t know any transgender folks and was told “How do you know they’re not transgender?” That’s the sort of nonsense that makes me roll my eyes at political correctness - along with the tendency to assume everyone’s a precious fucking snowflake and any issues they may have are someone else’s fault.
Sure, folks on the right-hand side of politics engage in their own version of political correctness, so it’s not just a lefty issue, but I’ve also never been called a “Patriarchal Oppressor” or “Colonialist Asshole” by anyone on the conservative end of the political scale either.