Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The sad thing is that a disproportionate share of the stuff that many of us (rousseau included I suppose) cherish about modern western society we owe to the progressive left. And yet so many of us are now highly critical of its most visible contemporary incarnation - the SJW set, for lack of a better term.

Without question. The left in the West has been on the right side of history on virtually every issue save for its initial support for the Soviet Union and China.

It was probably inevitable that identity politics would become so all-important to those who purport to be more caring about underdogs given that the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was essentially the grand-daddy of identity politics writ large (naturally in the positive sense). Follow that up with gay rights a few decades later and you basically have the template for any and all struggle against oppression, real or imagined.

Problem is, so much if it nowadays is imagined. It naturally never occurs to, say, the purple-haired tatted and pierced up lesbians chanting hysterically mindless slogans and nitpicking the most implausible injustices that the reason people don't want them around might have more to do with the fact that they are profoundly unpleasant people than anything else. What annoys me is that so many on the left serve up self-parodies on a platter for the ham-fisted right to hit out of the park. The notion that straight white men are the only real enemy is a caricature, but it's not that much of a caricature.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Problem is, so much if it nowadays is imagined. It naturally never occurs to, say, the purple-haired tatted and pierced up lesbians chanting hysterically mindless slogans and nitpicking the most implausible injustices that the reason people don't want them around might have more to do with the fact that they are profoundly unpleasant people than anything else. What annoys me is that so many on the left serve up self-parodies on a platter for the ham-fisted right to hit out of the park. The notion that straight white men are the only real enemy is a caricature, but it's not that much of a caricature.

This is why the dirtbag left is the best. All the good values without caring about offending people!

I'm kind of joking but I have found my views shifting more left the older I get but at the same time annoyed at the "SJW" crowd. Which is a bit of a misnomer but I digress. In reality it's just the internet which makes it seem universities are worse than they have always been.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Without question. The left in the West has been on the right side of history on virtually every issue save for its initial support for the Soviet Union and China.

It was probably inevitable that identity politics would become so all-important to those who purport to be more caring about underdogs given that the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was essentially the grand-daddy of identity politics writ large (naturally in the positive sense). Follow that up with gay rights a few decades later and you basically have the template for any and all struggle against oppression, real or imagined.

Problem is, so much if it nowadays is imagined. It naturally never occurs to, say, the purple-haired tatted and pierced up lesbians chanting hysterically mindless slogans and nitpicking the most implausible injustices that the reason people don't want them around might have more to do with the fact that they are profoundly unpleasant people than anything else. What annoys me is that so many on the left serve up self-parodies on a platter for the ham-fisted right to hit out of the park. The notion that straight white men are the only real enemy is a caricature, but it's not that much of a caricature.

I guess there is something comforting to them about only giving the time of day to "early adopter true believers" but the truth is that none of the social progress we are talking about and that took root over the past 50 years or so would have been possible without the passive consent of the "soft middle": non-gay, non-visible minorities, non-disabled, non-female, non-poor, etc.

Some may say that when you add up all those groups you get a super-majority, but for socio-historical reasons that's still not as powerful a base as what's potentially on the other side.

More often than not, the progressives have been able to convince a good chunk of the soft middle power base that women's rights will make a better society, that gay rights make sense and are no threat to them, that persons with disabilities are asset and not a burden...

So much so that the resisters, the true "conservatives" (who want to "conserve" things as they used to be) came to be viewed as dinosaurs by most everyone except themselves.

As I noted in my opening line, the progressive left now wants you to "believe" everything and you better believe it right away. If not, good riddance to bad rubbish is the mindset. Or worse.

The inherent risk in this is that it become a self-satisfied, insular rump minority movement with little power to change much. Kind of like the Green Party of Canada or the federal NDP for much of its history. True to its values for sure. But to what end?

Very little of the progress we've made since the 60s would have been possible if their political forebears had behaved the same way.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Very little of the progress we've made since the 60s would have been possible if their political forebears had behaved the same way.

This is the interesting question (to me). Is this perception actually correct? Or was early activism calling (just for example) for an end to racial caricatures in Hollywood or Jim Crow legislation viewed by the "soft middle" with similar derision (even though the term SJW had yet to be coined)? It seems a difficult question to answer without disciplined research.

EDIT: typo

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

I'm certainly guessing you have attended university, you carry yourself as such. However, you haven't noticed how inherently liberal universities have always been? And how modern liberalism has taken on identity and potentially victim based politics?

I was quite surprised how liberal universities were when I was a student many moons ago, and today students are far more vocal and assertive in their political interests... the sentiment out there is one that seeks collective agreement through ostracizing dissenters. Safe spaces and trigger warnings are no longer unusual. Look at the chaos caused by Jordan Petersen, and yes, the possibly hundreds of calls for his firing. His refusal to step down, despite huge efforts from students and staff, doesn't make this problem go away. Still, it's made everyone forget about Israel apartheid weeks.

My point isn't exclusively dealing with JUST firings or resignations either, but how mob mentality is "forcing" academia to react, and how people follow the mob. Whether resignations or shutting down events/disccussions/debate, etc, it fuels what I consider a problem... many trying to link themselves to an identity based anchor in their personal politics and use their own "safety" as an outward aggression against free speech or civil discourse.

Freedom of Speech and academic freedom are not really that protected anymore. Andrew Potter of McGill recklessly criticized Quebec... although maybe he's not entirely wrong... and he "resigned". The university did not hide the fact that there was huge outward political pressure. The difference between McGill and U of T is that U of T couldn't convince Peterson to do the same.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...er-resignation

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/w...job-at-mcgill/

Or a Men's issues awareness group in Ryerson being grinded out by angered dissenters, despite having many female members and dealing with very real male matters, like a much higher suicide rate than women.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/free-s...eech-1.4058994


Linked in that article (this stuff isn't hard to find), an Alberta pro-life group faced a huge security tab and declined to host their event. Again, putting political difference to them aside, consider the convenience... The university could not protect their free speech or freedom of religion and the mob's potential aggression alone would have cost them over $17k, which of course a student group has. Even though the university opposes the mob's behaviour

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-tab-1.3459413

This in response to that, and the general concern surrounding free speech in universities:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john...wn-free-speech

Wilfriid Laurier had to shut down another pro-life event, and McGill newspapers (they can't help themselves) have refused to print articles supporting Israel.

The Globe and Macleans have the following to say:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opi...beandmail.com&

http://www.macleans.ca/education/uni...speech-report/

While there have been some, but not many, resignations/firings, it's obviously worse down south. A Yale dean was forced to step down after a tasteless Yelp review. The Dean of Claremont McKenna College resigned after some poorly chosen words intended to indicate an effort to be MORE inclusive, and was met with hunger strikes. Hunger strikes. A professor at a Washington State College was berated (and his resignation demanded) for not participating in a "whites day of absence", and of course was called a racist by his colleagues (who were also trying to avoid being overrun by students). Never mind Berekely and the resignations following any Milo Yiannopoulous event on campuses (yes Milo is crazy).

You may say straw man, but I'm playing weatherman. I woiuldn't be surprised if a small storm brews in canada. We do not have the same problems as the US, but we're soft on infringements from one group onto another's. I've spent a fair amount of time in the states since the election and they don't talk about trump any more than we do... their behaviours aren't exclusive from ours all the time

That's why I, although I admittedly lean libertarian, have a big problem with the links above and of course how many on this board or in normal life claim it doesn't exist. Forced resignations do exist, and professors also know to shut up and keep their jobs. Furthermore, universities clearly have done less than necessary to protect individuals and individual concerns, even rights. In the atmosphere depicted above, which doesn't apply to all universities, you can gather why some professors have incentive to keep quiet as well.

To your last point: Of course it's incumbent for me to aptly demonstrate my opinion, if it's contrarian, rather than just shut someone down. Problem is society today shows an increased tendency to accuse and then shut down, rather than exchange and listen.

Since I'm a reasonable person, it would take a lot for another reasonable person to accuse me of something like racism, but perhaps less for a moron to do so (especially given an increased focus on identity based liberal politics). A moron willing to throw around such a dangerous and slanderous accusation will likely not allow, nor entertain any reasonable counterargument. This is an increasingly popular tactic these days. My tendency is to stand up for myself, but it is no more my duty to demonstrate my lack of racism than it is his or her duty to shut their mouth in the first place. Those mindless accusations are damaging to anyone's social or professional value, even if they are proven wrong.

An example would be that I could say I disagree with how Black Lives Matter operates, and that can very quickly turn into an accusation from a stupid person. Similarly, you can imagine the trouble a professor or corporate professional would run into should they have a public issue with BLM.

There still is freedom on campuses, just less of it.


Not a bad policy, but I doubt our ability to come to consensus outside of the beaver and Wayne Gretzky
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...3&postcount=22

[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the thoughtful post. Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to every point you raise. For the time being, I just want to respond to the bolded question in your first paragraph.

My concern with the "SJW" and "victim politics" AND 'identity politics" rhetoric is that, if we continue to label every claim of discrimination at the very outset as "victim politics" or "identity politics", we risk losing sight of the fact that there are people who continue to experience discrimination as a result of their "identities" (I trust that no one seriously disputes that). Therefore, I think that such claims should be, for the most part, at least considered individually and seriously. No doubt, there are and will always be a significant number of meritless claims. But it would be terrible if, in the interests of efficiency or convenience, we threw out the baby (meritorious claims) with the bathwater (meritless claims).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

This is the interesting question (to me). Is this perception actually correct? Or was early activism calling (just for example) for an end to racial caricatures or Jim Crow legislation in Hollywood viewed by the "soft middle" with similar derision (even though the term SJW had yet to be coined)? It seems a difficult question to answer without disciplined research.

I'd say that the calls for change in the 60s and 70s were certainly met with skepticism and even hostility. But their proponents nonetheless were able to win over a large chunk of the soft middle. And isolate the haters.

Even the battle for enhanced gay rights which is a very recent one succeeded in winning over the soft middle.

But I think that the SJW (sorry...) side has now gone too far off the rails. The soft middle has soured on them and their tactics and rhetoric, and even though much admittedly still needs to be done, SJWs (sorry again...) don't have much of an ear these days.

For this reason I don't see much additional social progress for a good while now.

I'll be pretty happy if we succeed in maintaining the status quo.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

This is the interesting question (to me). Is this perception actually correct? Or was early activism calling (just for example) for an end to racial caricatures in Hollywood or Jim Crow legislation viewed by the "soft middle" with similar derision (even though the term SJW had yet to be coined)? It seems a difficult question to answer without disciplined research.

EDIT: typo

I think the issues back then were much more black and white, no pun intended.

Blacks in the South in 1960 were suppressed from voting.

Aboriginal kids in 2017 may go to a school named after a Prime Minister who was a bit player in the creation of a residential school system that reached its zenith decades after he died, and [lack of] knowledge of this legacy on the part of the Aboriginal students may, in some very indirect way, help keep them at the bottom of Canada's socio-economic system.

I also think the protest tactics are incomparable.

One is a group of people linking arms and singing "We Shall Overcome" as the police release the dogs and open up the fire hose.

The other is upper middle class students yelling down university administration or taking to social media to call people who disagree with the fact that someone like Condoleeza Rice should have a venue to speak on campus "Nazis".

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

But it would be terrible if, in the interests of efficiency or convenience, we threw out the baby (meritorious claims) with the bathwater (meritless claims).

I've come to the conclusion that it's far, far more important that the majority not be willfully and arbitrarily impugned as racist, sexist, colonialist or whatever flavour-of-the-week insult is de rigeur than it is that all of society be forced to genuflect over every single perceived micro-insult. We are not apartheid South Africa, and we are not 1950s Alabama, and to state this plainly is not dismissive; it's the truth.

So many on the left are turning into hall monitor harpies. Add the insane right/alt-right into the mix and you've got a substantial section of society experiencing a kind of mass psychosis. It's not healthy.

I don't know what it would take for them to snap out of it. I think (or hope) that the current passions will probably whither away as this generation grows up and the one following it sees them for the utter shit they are.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I've come to the conclusion that it's far, far more important that the majority not be willfully and arbitrarily impugned as racist, sexist, colonialist or whatever flavour-of-the-week insult is de rigeur than it is that all of society be forced to genuflect over every single perceived micro-insult. We are not apartheid South Africa, and we are not 1950s Alabama, and to state this plainly is not dismissive; it's the truth.
.

If only to avoid a potentially dangerous backlash and even clawback on the progress we hold so dear...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Without question. The left in the West has been on the right side of history on virtually every issue save for its initial support for the Soviet Union and China.

On social issues, sure, but didn't they devastate Britain economically in the 1970s? Nearly half a century ago...

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd say that the calls for change in the 60s and 70s were certainly met with skepticism and even hostility. But their proponents nonetheless were able to win over a large chunk of the soft middle. And isolate the haters.

Even the battle for enhanced gay rights which is a very recent one succeeded in winning over the soft middle.

But I think that the SJW (sorry...) side has now gone too far off the rails. The soft middle has soured on them and their tactics and rhetoric, and even though much admittedly still needs to be done, SJWs (sorry again...) don't have much of an ear these days.

It's not just the "mushy middle" - even many on the far left have little patience for these types. Hell, I've even heard from people within the activist community itself of how toxic it's become.

While I think most on the left are still fairly responsive and sympathetic towards identity politic-type issues (to a reasonable degree), I don't the "SJW"-level politics resonates with many, either at the grassroots level or within the political class, or really any much farther than university students. Unfortunately these are the ones that do seem to have the loudest voices - helped in no small part by hysteria and exasperation coming from the other side, however.

Originally Posted by rousseau

So many on the left are turning into hall monitor harpies.

Pretty much. I thought this was a good on read on exactly that sentiment: https://medium.com/@freddiedeboer/pl...s-8917cfc01fc9

[optimusREIM]

=Reesonov;7911834]

I appreciate the thoughtful post. Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to every point you raise. For the time being, I just want to respond to the bolded question in your first paragraph.

My concern with the "SJW" and "victim politics" AND 'identity politics" rhetoric is that, if we continue to label every claim of discrimination at the very outset as "victim politics" or "identity politics", we risk losing sight of the fact that there are people who continue to experience discrimination as a result of their "identities" (I trust that no one seriously disputes that). Therefore, I think that such claims should be, for the most part, at least considered individually and seriously. No doubt, there are and will always be a significant number of meritless claims. But it would be terrible if, in the interests of efficiency or convenience, we threw out the baby (meritorious claims) with the bathwater (meritless claims).[/QUOTE]

But the real question in all that is this: do we actually think that we can legislate problems out of existence? Better question yet: can we legislate how people think?

There will always be some discrimination, So long as there continues to be individual freedom there will be discrimination. The problem, however big or small is legitimate, but you can't force people to reshape the way they think.

[Acajack]

In other news, Jaggi Singh has been charged with impersonation (among other things) after identifying himself as former Nordiques player Michel Goulet upon his arrest in Quebec City:

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/30...nation-charges

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think the issues back then were much more black and white, no pun intended.

Blacks in the South in 1960 were suppressed from voting.

Aboriginal kids in 2017 may go to a school named after a Prime Minister who was a bit player in the creation of a residential school system that reached its zenith decades after he died, and [lack of] knowledge of this legacy on the part of the Aboriginal students may, in some very indirect way, help keep them at the bottom of Canada's socio-economic system.

I also think the protest tactics are incomparable.

One is a group of people linking arms and singing "We Shall Overcome" as the police release the dogs and open up the fire hose.

The other is upper middle class students yelling down university administration or taking to social media to call people who disagree with the fact that someone like Condoleeza Rice should have a venue to speak on campus "Nazis".

I am pretty sure that there were violent protests on the part of the left in the 60s and 70s.

But the dominant discourse and approach of that side has definitely changed. I totally agree on that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I've come to the conclusion that it's far, far more important that the majority not be willfully and arbitrarily impugned as racist, sexist, colonialist or whatever flavour-of-the-week insult is de rigeur than it is that all of society be forced to genuflect over every single perceived micro-insult. We are not apartheid South Africa, and we are not 1950s Alabama, and to state this plainly is not dismissive; it's the truth.

.

I am going to quite this post of yours again, because it's got me thinking. You and I are roughly of the same age.

I think you're broadly right, but is this also not you making a bit of a defence of our generation's legacy/track record?

That said, I will agree that in a Canadian perspective at least, the system is not rotten, evil and irreformable to the point where this type of violence is justifiable in places like Quebec City and Toronto...

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am going to quite this post of yours again, because it's got me thinking. You and I are roughly of the same age.

I think you're broadly right, but is this also not you making a bit of a defence of our generation's legacy/track record?

I suppose. The Boomers got the ball rolling with civil rights and feminism, but it was GenX that solidified those good things into orthodoxy.

This is probably as good a place as any to post a link to a self-congratulatory article:

Why Generation X Might Be Our Last, Best Hope
Caught between vast, self-regarding waves of boomers and millennials, Generation X is steeped in irony, detachment, and a sense of dread. One of their rank argues that this attitude makes it the best suited to preserve American tradition in these dark new days.

We are a revolt against the boomers, a revolt against the revolt, a market correction, a restoration not of a power elite but of a philosophy.
...
We have been witnesses, watching and recalling.
...
Our generational works of art, those monuments—many of them share this sensibility. It’s a kind of enough-already detachment, an exhaustion, an opting for comedy over morals, lessons, rules.
...
Irony and a keen sense of dread are what make Generation X the last great hope, with its belief that, even if you could tell other people what to say and what not to say, even if you could tell them how to live, even if you could enforce those rules through social pressure and public shaming, why would you want to? I mean, it’s just so uncool.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/201...last-best-hope

It's very American-specific, but parts of it really resonate with me. I have to admit that I feel a powerful sense of disconnect with Millennials when it comes to a generalized sense of attitude and personality. These broad brush strokes are a caricature of a relatively small section of GenXers, but they get as close to describing me and lots of people like me as any caricature can.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Without question. The left in the West has been on the right side of history on virtually every issue save for its initial support for the Soviet Union and China.

It was probably inevitable that identity politics would become so all-important to those who purport to be more caring about underdogs given that the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was essentially the grand-daddy of identity politics writ large (naturally in the positive sense). Follow that up with gay rights a few decades later and you basically have the template for any and all struggle against oppression, real or imagined.

Problem is, so much if it nowadays is imagined. It naturally never occurs to, say, the purple-haired tatted and pierced up lesbians chanting hysterically mindless slogans and nitpicking the most implausible injustices that the reason people don't want them around might have more to do with the fact that they are profoundly unpleasant people than anything else. What annoys me is that so many on the left serve up self-parodies on a platter for the ham-fisted right to hit out of the park. The notion that straight white men are the only real enemy is a caricature, but it's not that much of a caricature.

Rousseau, to me it seems like you're describing the natural progression of a successful movement. Movements propagate themselves, and one that has been as successful as the women's rights->civil rights->social justice movement will naturally cause many to see it as THE path forward instead of a limited time project with clear, measurable goals with a defined end point.

Historically, since clear goals were often not defined, many were not satisfied by the significant accomplishments and progress made while others continued to move on to other causes because the struggle gave their lives meaning. Initially the costs of the societal changes wrought were easily outweighed by the benefits. Later, more damaging changes took a long while to reveal their impact because they were generational in nature and people didn't realize the cause-effect relationship. All the while the movement continued to propagate itself, drilling down further and further in search of the slightest wrongs and arriving to where we are today.

The movement for social justice is a valuable and necessary means of dealing with major and systematic injustices in multiethnic/multicultural societies. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, the goal to help diverse people who happen to live together in certain places get along better was replaced with the goal to make all places diverse. The cart was put before the horse. "Diversity is our strength" is no longer a cheerful slogan to help settle people down when natural disagreements flare up between diverse individuals but has rather become a rallying cry to encourage the creation of diversity in homogenous environments at the cost of societal cohesion and unique cultures and belief systems.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

I'm certainly guessing you have attended university, you carry yourself as such. However, you haven't noticed how inherently liberal universities have always been? And how modern liberalism has taken on identity and potentially victim based politics?

I was quite surprised how liberal universities were when I was a student many moons ago, and today students are far more vocal and assertive in their political interests... the sentiment out there is one that seeks collective agreement through ostracizing dissenters. Safe spaces and trigger warnings are no longer unusual. Look at the chaos caused by Jordan Petersen, and yes, the possibly hundreds of calls for his firing. His refusal to step down, despite huge efforts from students and staff, doesn't make this problem go away. Still, it's made everyone forget about Israel apartheid weeks.

My point isn't exclusively dealing with JUST firings or resignations either, but how mob mentality is "forcing" academia to react, and how people follow the mob. Whether resignations or shutting down events/disccussions/debate, etc, it fuels what I consider a problem... many trying to link themselves to an identity based anchor in their personal politics and use their own "safety" as an outward aggression against free speech or civil discourse.

Freedom of Speech and academic freedom are not really that protected anymore. Andrew Potter of McGill recklessly criticized Quebec... although maybe he's not entirely wrong... and he "resigned". The university did not hide the fact that there was huge outward political pressure. The difference between McGill and U of T is that U of T couldn't convince Peterson to do the same.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...er-resignation

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/w...job-at-mcgill/

Or a Men's issues awareness group in Ryerson being grinded out by angered dissenters, despite having many female members and dealing with very real male matters, like a much higher suicide rate than women.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/free-s...eech-1.4058994


Linked in that article (this stuff isn't hard to find), an Alberta pro-life group faced a huge security tab and declined to host their event. Again, putting political difference to them aside, consider the convenience... The university could not protect their free speech or freedom of religion and the mob's potential aggression alone would have cost them over $17k, which of course a student group has. Even though the university opposes the mob's behaviour

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-tab-1.3459413

This in response to that, and the general concern surrounding free speech in universities:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john...wn-free-speech

Wilfriid Laurier had to shut down another pro-life event, and McGill newspapers (they can't help themselves) have refused to print articles supporting Israel.

The Globe and Macleans have the following to say:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opi...beandmail.com&

http://www.macleans.ca/education/uni...speech-report/

While there have been some, but not many, resignations/firings, it's obviously worse down south. A Yale dean was forced to step down after a tasteless Yelp review. The Dean of Claremont McKenna College resigned after some poorly chosen words intended to indicate an effort to be MORE inclusive, and was met with hunger strikes. Hunger strikes. A professor at a Washington State College was berated (and his resignation demanded) for not participating in a "whites day of absence", and of course was called a racist by his colleagues (who were also trying to avoid being overrun by students). Never mind Berekely and the resignations following any Milo Yiannopoulous event on campuses (yes Milo is crazy).

You may say straw man, but I'm playing weatherman. I woiuldn't be surprised if a small storm brews in canada. We do not have the same problems as the US, but we're soft on infringements from one group onto another's. I've spent a fair amount of time in the states since the election and they don't talk about trump any more than we do... their behaviours aren't exclusive from ours all the time

That's why I, although I admittedly lean libertarian, have a big problem with the links above and of course how many on this board or in normal life claim it doesn't exist. Forced resignations do exist, and professors also know to shut up and keep their jobs. Furthermore, universities clearly have done less than necessary to protect individuals and individual concerns, even rights. In the atmosphere depicted above, which doesn't apply to all universities, you can gather why some professors have incentive to keep quiet as well.

To your last point: Of course it's incumbent for me to aptly demonstrate my opinion, if it's contrarian, rather than just shut someone down. Problem is society today shows an increased tendency to accuse and then shut down, rather than exchange and listen.

Since I'm a reasonable person, it would take a lot for another reasonable person to accuse me of something like racism, but perhaps less for a moron to do so (especially given an increased focus on identity based liberal politics). A moron willing to throw around such a dangerous and slanderous accusation will likely not allow, nor entertain any reasonable counterargument. This is an increasingly popular tactic these days. My tendency is to stand up for myself, but it is no more my duty to demonstrate my lack of racism than it is his or her duty to shut their mouth in the first place. Those mindless accusations are damaging to anyone's social or professional value, even if they are proven wrong.

An example would be that I could say I disagree with how Black Lives Matter operates, and that can very quickly turn into an accusation from a stupid person. Similarly, you can imagine the trouble a professor or corporate professional would run into should they have a public issue with BLM.

There still is freedom on campuses, just less of it.


Not a bad policy, but I doubt our ability to come to consensus outside of the beaver and Wayne Gretzky
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...3&postcount=22

With respect to the pro-life/anti-abortion groups, a lot of the opposition to those groups on university campuses has come from an idea that people who hold those views "hate" women and just want to oppress them.

The trouble is, a lot of these groups today are comprised heavily of women. And having talked to some of them, I've found their intentions have nothing to do with hate or oppression. You can't convince the SJWs of that though; the popular notion of elderly male Knights of Columbus members protesting against abortion in the 1980s is still what they (JT included) think the anti-abortion movement is comprised of. Most of those men are long dead.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

And having talked to some of them, I've found their intentions have nothing to do with hate or oppression.

Anyone against abortion who claims it has nothing to do with hate or oppression is a complete and utter moron. And since not everyone out there is a complete and utter moron, it follows that most people against abortion are malevolent, at least on this issue.

Because they are actively seeking to inflict unimaginable pain and suffering on women.

I think the speech rights on university campuses is a tough one. The anti-abortion brigade aren't quite as toxic as the racists, the white supremacists, the alt-right morons and the like, but they're getting there. At what point does an intellectual debate turn into a grandstanding display of authoritarian nonsense whose main and very explicit purpose is to harm people (though of course they would make the idiotic claim that they wish to "save babies")?

[elly63]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Anyone against abortion who claims it has nothing to do with hate or oppression is a complete and utter moron. And since not everyone out there is a complete and utter moron, it follows that most people against abortion are malevolent, at least on this issue.

Because they are actively seeking to inflict unimaginable pain and suffering on women.

I think the speech rights on university campuses is a tough one. The anti-abortion brigade aren't quite as toxic as the racists, the white supremacists, the alt-right morons and the like, but they're getting there. At what point does an intellectual debate turn into a grandstanding display of authoritarian nonsense whose main and very explicit purpose is to harm people (though of course they would make the idiotic claim that they wish to "save babies")?

You have some wickedly serious prejudices.