Last night, after watching highlights from Donald Trump’s disturbing performance at CPAC, I posted the following to Twitter. And, as a few people have asked me what I meant by it, I thought that I’d post an explanation here.
McCarthyism started this way, with threats against institutions of higher education designed to force out liberal faculty members, replacing them with conservative ones. https://t.co/f81EVZe006
— Mark Maynard (@MarkAMaynard) March 3, 2019
While I, of course, found much of what our President said last night to be troubling, like his repeated suggestion that Democrats want to make the murder of babies legal, I was particularly struck by the threat he leveled at America’s institutions of higher education, as it reminded me of something that we’ve seen in this country before… something that a lot of us hoped we’d never see again.
As I heard Donald Trump announce last night that he would soon be signing “an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research grants,” I was immediately taken back to a conversation I’d had about half a dozen years ago with Ann Arbor native Alan Haber, the first president of Students for Democratic Society (SDS). Specifically, I was reminded of a memory that Haber had shared with me from the Fall of 1954, when, as a freshman at the University of Michigan, he’d happened across a small protest on the steps of Angell Hall, where a group of graduate students and university employees had gathered to protest the firing of professors Chandler Davis, Mark Nickerson, and Clement Markert, all of whom had been fired after refusing to cooperate with the House Unamerican Activities Committee. [This is a part of U-M history, like the fact that Ann Coulter, Herman Webster Mudgett, and Theodore Kaczynski all attended school here, that many of us otherwise proud alumni would like to forget about.]
If you have the time, I’d encourage you to watch the video of my conversation with Haber, which goes into some detail about the impact of McCarthyism on campus, as men like Davis, Nickerson and Markert were pushed aside in favor of far-right academics like my old European Intellectual History professor, the very conservative Stephen Tonsor, who was hired in ’54, just as these other three men were leaving. [For what it’s worth, I valued Tonsor’s perspective, and still think fondly of his lectures, which seemed to be delivered without the least bit of concern as to how they might be received by the students present. I have a particularly vivid memory of a lecture that he began by slamming his briefcase on his desk and declaring quite loudly that pop-singer Madonna was “a whore.” If you don’t believe me about that, by the way, you can ask my friend Dr. Peter Larson, who, back in ’92 or ’93, after weeks of hearing my Tonsor stories, and assuming they were total bullshit, demanded that I allow him to tag along and attend class with me. Well, I took him with me to class one morning, and it just happened to be on the day that Tonsor decided to lecture on Madonna, who, by the way, had attended the university a decade or so earlier. Tonsor, for what it’s worth, would have been about 70 at the time.]
Of course, we have no idea if Donald Trump will actually sign an executive order designed to make college campuses more friendly to the views of his followers. He does, after all, tend to say things like this quite often, and not follow through. And it’s impossible to know, even if he did demand research institutions to shift right, what that would look like in practice. How, after all, does one make a world-class research institution more friendly to those who disregard facts and refute science?
If changes did happen, I imagine they would start subtly, as they did during the era of Joseph McCarthy. Universities wouldn’t immediately start firing climate scientists and announcing endowed chairs in QAnon Studies… No, they’d start by trying to curry favor with the administration, hiring people known to be friendly with the President. And things would evolve from there. Faculty members like Juan Cole would find themselves without jobs, and faux-academics like Sebastian Gorka would find themselves in demand. And, over time, if there wasn’t some kind of correction, our nation’s research institutions would turn to shit… at a time, I might add, that we need our academic research institutions more than ever. [Remember, the window to address global climate change is closing fast.]
I know this probably goes without saying for many of you, but I think it’s worth pointing out, for those who don’t work in academia, that federal research dollars aren’t exactly easy to come by. Academics compete for federal research dollars, and, at least in theory, only the best projects are funded, after having gone through an intensive peer review process. And, historically speaking, the results of this system have been incredible. Without federal research investments, it’s doubtful, for instance, that we’d have smartphones, the internet, or many of the drugs we benefit from today… Now, just imagine, instead of choosing the most promising projects, with the best research teams, for funding, you eliminated from consideration any projects coming from campuses thought to be unfriendly to the followers of Donald Trump? And what would that look like for America?
To those of you who agree with Donald Trump on this, I have one simple question… Would you rather have scientists at Berkley, or at Bob Jones University, working on the cancer drug that you might one day need to save the life of your child? I know, in the moment, it may feel good to lash out and punish those “ivory tower intellectuals” who, in your opinion, don’t understand what it really means to earn a living, but, really, by doing so, you’d just be hurting yourself.
Like I said, there’s a very good chance that nothing will come of this most recent threat. Trump has said as much before, and done nothing. With that said, though, all of us here in the greater Ann Arbor area, which is so dependent on the University of Michigan’s research operation, should be concerned that our President is talking about restricting research dollars to universities that he perceives as unfriendly. [UM is the number one public research institution in the nation in terms of federal research expenditures.] We just can’t afford to take such threats lightly… Here, with more on this, is an except from The Chronicle of Higher Education.
…The Pew Research Center found last year that 79 percent of Republicans said they were unhappy with professors who inject their political and social opinions into class discussions, and 75 percent said colleges were too worried about protecting students from views that might offend them.
Before making the announcement, President Trump brought to the stage a conservative activist who was punched in the face last month at the University of California at Berkeley.
The activist, Hayden Williams, had been helping the university’s chapter of the conservative group Turning Point USA.
Williams told the crowd that students like himself face “discrimination, harassment, and worse if they dare to speak up on campus.”
The president told Williams that he has a great lawyer and suggested that he sue the university, and possibly the State of California.
“Ladies and gentlemen — he took a punch for all of us. … Here’s the good news: He’s going to be a very wealthy young man. Go get ’em, Hayden.”
The president’s latest threat echoes one he made in 2017 against Berkeley. He said he would cut off federal support for the university after unrest over the visit of a right-wing provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos, turned violent.
It’s worth noting, by the way, that neither Williams, nor the individual who struck him, were Berkley students… So this example offered by Trump has absolutely nothing to do with Berkley.
I should also add that I may not have reacted quite so strongly to Trump’s comment about withholding research dollars from institutions that he perceives as too liberal, had it not been for the fact that he doubled down on his Joseph McCarthy impersonation during the same rant, saying that he had ‘a list of names’ of people in Congress who “hate our country.” Here, if you haven’t seen it, is the video.
So, yeah, the President of the United States, after declaring the Justice Department case against him to be “bullshit,” then went on to say, “We have people in Congress who hate our country… and I could name names if you want, but I think you know who I mean.”
This is not normal.
This is dangerous.
And more people will die.
I could go on for hours, but it would just make me more depressed. So I’m going to search for Phil Silvers videos on YouTube instead.
268 Comments
Hopefully he will rethink (or forget) his executive order promise–I can’t imagine how it could be anything but a disaster. My own UM education was truly phenomenal and I appreciated the variety of perspectives to which I was exposed. To wit: I graduated from the LSA Residential College (think poetry, creative writing, arts & ideas, etc.), but not before taking “19th Century Intellectual Society” from Stephen Tonsor. Your description of him was spot-on!
And, yes, I found the “naming names” quip to be quite chilling, too. I think I’ll go for Auntie Mame rather than Phil Silvers….
After massively failing with North Korea he had no choice but to go on the offensive with this stupid culture war nonsense. It’s all he has.
I think what Mark is trying to say is Universities could have violated a long list of human rights on college campuses and we would still have “smart phones”. Federal funding ought to flow without regard to things like morality, human rights and the constitution.
#becausesmartphones
FF, please tell us more about these “human rights” violations on college campuses.
Are baby sex slaves being eaten in secret tunnels beneath UM? #Pizzagate
No Free Speech for MAGA peeps. It’s the Derpocratic way.
I don’t know much of anything about pizzagate, secret tunnels, or baby sex. Would you like to share your knowledge, Eel?
If Eel does not agree that “freedom of speech” should be one of the right enumerated under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then maybe Eel should complain to the United Nations.
“Eel
Posted March 4, 2019 at 9:01 am | Permalink
Are baby sex slaves being eaten in secret tunnels beneath UM? #Pizzagate”
Did you know infants are abused every day by sick people? They do that and sell the footage. Are you sure you want to mock victims of things like that? What does that do to a person I wonder. What happened to someone like you to make you behave this way?
What evidence exists that free speech is not protected for conservatives on UM’s campus?
This seems self-contradictory:
“79 percent of Republicans said they were unhappy with professors who inject their political and social opinions into class discussions, and 75 percent said colleges were too worried about protecting students from views that might offend them.”
Just a reminder here that facing counter for one’s views does not amount to discrimination. It’s protected free speech. Discomfort is not suppression.
Attempting to physically prevent someone speaking not bad enough?
A Wallace Fellows panel on Free Speech at UM.
https://the1a.org/2018/02/15/watch-live-panel-free-speech-joshua-johnson
“Attempting to physically prevent someone speaking not bad enough?”
Evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PSYPrE5LrQ
Anonymous,
Why are you trying to situate the free speech issues on University campuses around UM specifically? Trump was not advocating to specifically take money from UM was he? No he was not.
UM, imo seems better than most about being truly liberal when it comes to recognizing the value of free speech. So what? Does UM’s position mean we do not have an issue on the national level? Does UM’s position mean we do not have an issue in terms of a developing cultural stance?
There is a database of campus disinvitation of speakers on the grounds of political views. It might be worthwhile for you to take a look at that database, if you are going to ask us to pretend that there is not a national issue around free speech.
If you want to hear more local thoughts around free speech articulated by the college educated progressives of the MM.com community then you can always take a look at the “Spencer/MSU” discussion here to get a feel for how much people on this site value the human right of free speech. That discussion will not disappoint you, I promise.
Eel’s failure to even recognize free speech as a human right is telling, no?
Google: “Disinvitation database–FIRE”
Peer review in the sciences rewards those whose proposed work will confirm the previous work of the committee members. It’s a sham. The Chronicle of Higher Education has published numerous articles about how as much as 90% of the published work in the biomedical sciences can’t be replicated.
The University environment is hostile to conservative views. Diversity is embraced unless one advocates diversity of thought. President Schlissel emailed the entire University and announced that the whole community was suffering as a result of the last Presidential election. He offered counseling for all those who were suffering and announced a candlelight vigil that the “whole community” was welcome to attend.
And by the way, McCarthy was right as the Verona files have verified. He was a Senator, had nothing to do with the activities of the “House UnAmerican Activities Committee”., which is what most unknowledgeable persons think.
And yes, not providing food and water to babies born alive is murder. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/25/18239964/born-alive-abortion-survivors-protection-2019-sasse
Meanwhile the NRA (Nuts, Racists, Assholes) is whipping up CPAC to shoot Socialist in the event they have electoral success. Should definitely stimulate gun sales, to Socialists.
https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1101849502053474304?s=19
Yeah, that’s what that means. You would know a lot about whipping people up to shoot each other so I’m taking your word for it.
Looking forward to the “University of Notre Dame Mandatory Gay Marriage, Abortions, and Satan Worshipping” club to be created and promoted on campus with the threat of losing the tens of millions of dollars in federal research funding they receive.
This is your leader, folks.
https://twitter.com/michaelschweitz/status/1102461674857086976
Time to get on the right side of history like Michael Cohen before it’s too late.
FWIW,
I appreciate Anonymous linking to the Wallace Fellows panel on free speech at UM. I do not have time to watch it all but the parts I listened to felt like authentic and accurate representations of commonly held perspectives. I think it would be great to discuss aspects of that conversation. Is there some particular part of the debate you would like to highlight as insightful, Anonymous? Any part of that debate that articulates your opinions about free speech on campus?
44 Senate Democrats voted in favor of infanticide on Monday of last week
No one supports infanticide, EOS.
The Wallace panel video offered by Anonymous is excellent! I hope you guys can all watch it.
By weird coincidence Alan Haber participated in the Q and A session of the Wallace panel. In a somewhat inappropriate way, he used his time to ask a “question”, in a way that did not directly address the topic of discussion, but he did talk about the park downtown a lot…I found it humorous.
For the people who took the time to listen to the video and also watched the Charles Murray speech: How about Maximillian Alvarez’s characterization of the Murray protest? Accurate?
What do you guys think about Maximillian’s claim that left leaning professors are, at a higher rate, victims of thought policing?
What do you guys think about Maximillian’s conflating speech with violence (which is supposedly inevitable from the followers of certain speakers) as a justification for disrupting and preventing certain speakers at UM?
What do you call finishing off a live baby, Lynne?
How do you not answer that after saying what you said earlier? I just wonder what it is like to live like that.
Speaking of McCarthyism…
@Frosted Flakes,
I just finished watching the video. It was interesting. What stood out to me was how Max continually conflated a conservative viewpoint with white supremacy. The overwhelming majority, perhaps 99.9% of conservatives reject white supremacy.
Joshua, in being the “neutral” moderator was more provocative. When asked why it is when the left comes to disrupt a speaker, and resorts to violent tactics, the violence is then blamed on the speaker. Joshua stated that listening is sometimes morally untenable. This is the problem in a nutshell.
And Joshua also stated that he felt his job as a journalist is to create a consensus. The role of the free press is to report what happened, not to tell us how to think about it.
And Haber was totally off topic and irrelevant.
I’m also interested in what others think of the video.
This might sound like a rhetorical question but it is not: How is it possible that an undergrad student (Jesse Arms) was able to, at every turn, hold his own and even “get the better” of a dual PHD candidate, who, at the time had been a University student for about a dozen years, while, more or less having the on stage support of a panel made up of professor, a dean and a moderator who more or less seemed to have Maximillian’s back? How is that possible?
“Speaking of McCarthyism…”
That’s right. You are the modern day McCarthyites but without a shred of evidence. Do you listen to the way people talk on your blog? The fuckin’ ‘Russkies’?
Mark thinks he is a breaking another story.
I was wondering why they introduced Max as a student and he then went on to describe how he teaches his classes. With the views he expressed, I wouldn’t want to be a student in his class. What kind of PhD is he working towards? I thought you had to give it up if you couldn’t finish a PhD in 8 years?
Of course we know no one wants dead babies. Hence our current laws preventing just that. The same people who profess we need NO MORE gun laws, want new laws protecting babies from being murdered. The laws already exist. Basically they want to fuck with abortion, they certainly don’t care about babies. Hence their support for baby prisons for profit for refugee children. Abortion is health care, legal health care. And get a clue a learn about late term abortions, the tragic need that should only be between parents and their physicians.
When I was a kid I would wet the bed. Upset about it I prayed for god to wake me up if I needed to urinate. My prayers were not answered exactly. For several months I would simply incorporate the need to urinate into my dreams. That is, while sleeping, instead of really waking up and using the bathroom I would dream that I was sleeping; and dream that I was waking up because I needed to urinate; and dream that I got out of bed to use the bathroom; when in fact I was actually just wetting the bed in reality as I slept, while simultaneously, using the bathroom in my dreams.
So, I prayed to god to help me recognize when I was inside of dream so that I could wake myself up. The benefit has been many years of lucid dreaming and a dry bed to wake up to.
It is my opinion that we have a lot people in the mm.com community who are “woke” inside of their own dreams. The day is coming when they will wake up and realize that there bed is in fact thoroughly soaked, filled with years worth of their own piss.
@maryd,
No. It’s no longer an abortion if the baby is outside of the womb, independent of its mother, breathing air. The depravity of the Democrats is that they would not pass a law that would include a penalty for persons who let the child die after birth. It’s no longer the mother’s choice. The mother can choose to raise the baby or give it up for adoption, but should not be able to choose to kill the baby.
The dirty secret is that there is no medical reason that dictates a need for a late term abortion. A late term abortion needs 2-3 days of drug treatment to prepare the cervix so that it is dilated enough for a doctor to reach in and grab a limb and tear it off. If it is an emergency that threatens the life of the woman, then a c-section would be done immediately.
Maybe Maximillian took time off? I am not sure and I am guilty of making an assumption that he did not take time off. Bachelors degree in 2009. Masters degree in 2012. This talk was in 2017. A Phd takes time so I don’t want to sound accusatory at all. It just seems like the undergrad did a great job making good points, as the lone “right of center” voice, against a deck that was clearly stacked against him. How is it possible that Jesse performed well under those circumstances? Maybe people here think Jesse had bad arguments I don’t know…Curious what people think.
Frosted Flakes: It’s more likely that you aged out of bedwetting than that got intervened. These things are usually simply a matter of development. Biology not deity.
https://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/guide/bedwetting-causes#1
PS Delusion is not unique to the left. EOS’ statement above makes that clear. It’s a human condition. God is also a delusion, which places a fatal flaw in the center of your analogy.
Wrong Anonymous. Whether or not God exists or whether or not God had a something to do with my ability to recognize I am dreaming is completely irrelevant to the analogy.
I lucid dream. I wake myself up when I need to use the restroom in my dreams.
Whether or not the analogy holds does not in any way depend on whether or not god is a delusion. The status of my analogy depends upon whether or not your bed smells of piss and you do not know it yet.
Frosted Flakes– You are relying on your perception of events rather than medical findings, which show you likely stopped bedwetting about when your family members with a similar developmental pattern stopped bedwetting. It’s genetic. That may correspond to your idea of God, but it doesn’t make your case. Insisting on your perception v data makes my case that delusion is not unique to one side or the other.
Re The First Amendment panel discussion. I thought all sides were well represented, fitting for the topic. One thing also became clear, one side is not more supportive of freedom of speech and discourse than another. While Alvarez stated that some speech is violence and Jesse said he received some speech as suppressive to his beliefs, both supported broad free speech protections– the right to speak and the right to dissent. Neither supported restrictions on free speech. Alvarez has every right under free speech protections to equate conservativism with white supremacy, just as white supremacists have free speech protections in this country. We are all free to disagree. Everything is as it should be. For now.
Oops. Outed myself. Interesting how much more pleasant you all are when I post anonymously. No personal attacks. You actually clicked on the links. Actual conversation. Oh well. Crawling back into my hidey hole now.
Anonymous,
You have the right to your opinion, but no right to change the facts. I’m not deluded. If you think I said something that is not factual, then present your case for why it is incorrect. Don’t be lazy. What statement did I make that you feel is incorrect? I’m waiting.
Jean Henry
Posted March 5, 2019 at 9:58 am | Permalink
Oops. Outed myself. Interesting how much more pleasant you all are when I post anonymously. No personal attacks. You actually clicked on the links. Actual conversation. Oh well. Crawling back into my hidey hole now.
Yeah right Jean. We are biased against arguments posted as “Jean Henry”. Yet by some miraculous coincidence we also disagree with the statements posted as “Anonymous” by Jean Henry. There is something to be learned here so don’t squander it: We reject (and refute) your arguments because they are bad arguments not because we reject you as a person. It does not matter what name you post under or what your gender is…
EOS– DNR orders is not killing a baby. Late term abortions are always done when either the mother’s health is at risk or the fetus has little chance of survival outside of the womb. You have every right to believe what you believe but you don’t get to decide what others have to believe. Every parent should have a right to make medical decisions in consultation with doctors to prevent undue suffering in their children.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/02/19/late-term-abortion-donald-trump-ben-sasse-state-union-column/2881880002/
I never said you agreed with me posting anonymously. I had no such expectation. I said you engaged more openly. And now the trap has shut again. And the insults return. And so it goes.
I don’t really care what you think. It was just an interesting experiment in bias, esp cognitive bias.
Too bad it’s too late to post this anonymously when EOS might actually read it.
https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/late-term-abortion-support-group-lessons-trust-myself-women.html
That is an extremely phony take, Jean. I think all this talk of other people being biased against you is self-preservation for your own ego. I practically accused your bed of smelling like piss before you outed yourself as Jean. Why? Because your anonymous reasoning gave off an unpleasant odor.
Oh FF. It’s really so sad. The MM comment section is a real cesspool, true enough, but it’s not me who wets the bed.
I knew it couldn’t last.
Thanks for trying anyway, HW.
I apologize for getting everybody’s hopes up. I just wanted to believe so much it clouded my vision.
Well, I guess the planned celebration at Old Town Wednesday night will have to be more like a wake.
Trying what?
Trying to liberate the blog. I still feel we each owe you a beer for trying. Poor Mark though. He must be curled up in a corner somewhere balling like a newborn right now.
We can all still gather at Old Town Wednesday night to mourn all this. Maybe we can all take turns renouncing our white privilege.
Hey, just because some people on this blog don’t have the sense to know they have been obliterated doesn’t mean I haven’t done it.
What is the with these right wing nut jobs and their obsession with pissing in beds? That a bug, not a feature!
Are they saying that since I cant get past my pre-teen bedwetting trauma and live an adult life based in reality, then to hell with the rest of humanity? Thats kinda how it sounds. Makes sense that FF would be a bed wetter and then try to play Dr Phil as a trolling technique.
“One thing also became clear, one side is not more supportive of freedom of speech and discourse than another.”–Jean
I don’t think we watched the same video, Jean. What you say is “clear” was not clear at all. Maximillian was intentionally vague about whether or not he supported the “virtual shutdown” of Murray’s speech through the various tactics employed by the protesting students. The fact that Maximillian mis-represent what actually happened at the Murray speech leads me to believe that Maximillian would be unwilling to condemn the actions of the protestors which led to a severe degradation of the conversation at that event.
JB is partially correct. I would not call it trolling but I was intentionally being provocative to try to elicit a response. If you look at the thread I asked “Anonymous” reasonable questions and tried to enter into a conversation but going the nice route did not elicit a response…
You seem to have very strong feelings about Dr. Phil as you have called me a Dr. Phil type a couple of times now. I am sorry I don’t know enough about Dr. Phil to get the point of the reference. If you want to explain the reference then I would consider what you are trying to say more.
Furthermore, Maximillian assumed (and accused) Jesse of bringing Charles Murray onto campus strictly in order to “piss people off”. That is, Maximillian thought it was inconceivable that there was any other reason for having Murray on campus. If Maximillian really thinks Charles Murray employs such horrible arguments, then he should have let Murray speak and then attacked his arguments. Why didn’t he?
I misspoke: Apparently Maximillian was not one of the “disrupters” at the event as he was just quietly holding a sign; but it is my understanding that he did not condemn the disruption; nor did he try to engage with Murray’s arguments during the presentation.
Yes, but Maximillian held a rally on the diag prior to the talk in order to inform all students of the upcoming talk. I think his actions were to provoke others to respond negatively.
Trump is such a gutless fool, he doesn’t know what he wants one day to the next.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-says-he-agrees-100-percent-keeping-u-s-troops-n979466?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&fbclid=IwAR1y_324WhydgYIG5tzUKipsIaURssA-zD_OqbwHGFVstolr5JdCoIEKq6M
Abortion kills—where do you stand on Drone attacks?
I suspect you are right EOS.
In the Vice video piece Maximillian was speaking to his class discussing why people need to proceed with “de-platforming” cautiously. The reason for caution cited by Maximillian was not moral concerns for respect and human rights it was the possible LEGAL blowback in terms of DEFUNDING. I think he has an intuition about how his bread is buttered. Has he really ever thought about how his bread is buttered though?
You won’t here much about this here or in the MSM, but Socialist and their allies won big in Chicago the other day.
https://www.thenation.com/article/socialists-progressives-chicago-election-rahm-emanuel/
Wobblie, that’s great. Check out the socialist rifle association at https://socialistra.org
Their best recruiters are Agent Orange and the NRA.
Protest and disruption are free speech as well, FF. You may not like it or even see it as a form of violence, but people can yell at speakers. They can be removed from the hall, but they can’t be arrested for simply speaking out of turn. The MSU action that was so effective against Spencer didn’t even enter the hall where he spoke. They allowed them free access to the hall but lined up along the sides and expressed their dissent peacefully if loudly. They also found out every place where the alt right people stayed and ate beforehand and protested (ie asserted their right to free speech) in those places as well. If you think this should not be legal (v simply rude), then maybe you aren’t the passionate defender of free speech that you think you are.
I’m not sure why you think Alvarez was somehow not advocating for free speech when he defended the protests of Murray. Those protests were free speech. He was very clear that he invites dissent and open discourse in his classroom. He was clear he believes strongly in free speech and grew up around social conservatives. The whole thing seemed very balanced. I thought Jesse did well but seemed to express many double standards about free speech (Many of the same double standards you express.). He chose to attend Michigan. Maybe he thought he would win more arguments than he does. He never made the case of bias against conservatives that amounted to limits on free speech. He simply expressed that that’s how he felt. Neither Alvarez or I think Universities should provide ‘safe spaces’ for people to be insulated from the discomfort of opposing viewpoints. Do you?
Why do you want Alvarez to condemn free speech expression… in order to prove he supports free speech. That’s just a bizarre line of argument.
Charles Murray’s arguments have been well debunked by academics. There is no reason for Alvarez to take it upon himself to do so. It’s been done and done well. It’s reasonable for people of color to protest someone who argues for scientific racism. The legacy of these arguments is staggering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Charles Murray is a clown. It is astounding that people who claim that Planned Parenthood supports eugenics would come out in defense of a real eugenicist such as Charles Murray.
What is The Negro Project of the South?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGo_3gsLwI
Do you mean Song of the South?
What does Sanger’s letter from 1939 have to do with anything under discussion here?
1) “Protest and disruption are free speech as well, FF.”
2) “…people can yell at speakers.”
3) “If you think this should not be legal (v simply rude), then maybe you aren’t the passionate defender of free speech that you think you are.”
No Jean. I am not arguing that protest, disruption, yelling are not legally protected speech.
Ok then.
“Why do you want Alvarez to condemn free speech expression… in order to prove he supports free speech. That’s just a bizarre line of argument.”
“I’m not sure why you think Alvarez was somehow not advocating for free speech when he defended the protests of Murray. Those protests were free speech.”–Jean
Yes, those protests were legally protected free speech. I am not accusing Alvarez of somehow being against legally protected speech. Likewise, Alvarez does not need to be against the protest to be for legally protected free speech because as you pointed out that would not make sense.
That’s who started Planned Parenthood, anonymous. I thought you would be aware of that. Someone with your same nick just said it’s clownish to think Planned Parenthood is eugenics. We’ve been through this before on here. Don’t know how long you have been posting comments. Like I said before they are proud of targeting “the underserved.” We know from government statistics African American women are far more likely to get abortions so put two and two together your own self.
HW, I think Planned Parenthood’s founding by someone who believed in eugenics is about as relevant as the United States being founded by men who didn’t think women should be allowed to vote and who also believed in slavery. Sometimes people with what are today considered negative beliefs can start nations or non-profits that are on the whole positive.
FF– So your argument against Alvarez is not about free speech but upholding some standards of discourse– respectability politics.
You’re going to need to hold Trump and co. to those standards before asking members of targeted populations to do so. Look at the power dynamics. Why are you scrutinizing Alvarez instead of the President and co.?
Free Speech protections are a means of preventing excessive suppressive use of power.
Your double standard applies standards of respectability only to the powerless.
No longer planned as a celebration, I still hope all the Maytards can make it to tonight’s gathering at the Old Town Grill. It’s going to be great. We will have musical entertainment and attendees can break into discussion groups as desired. Suggested topics will include gaslighting, dog-whistling, mansplaining, just to name a few. We will also provide an opportunity for all of you white males to apologize for and renounce your privilege. There will also be an official ceremony where Mark hands over the symbolic blogger’s keyboard to his successor. I really look forward to seeing everybody there and finally putting some faces to some names.
I’m sorry your attempt to completely do
I ate the comment section of MM produced so little interest or reply iRobert. It seems that people don’t really care much about what you think. As for the comments section, I post less than most here— I just tend to do so all at once because… time. And it seems Mark has no interest in the shaninigand here. Watching your weird defensiveness about social justice concerns and consequent allyship with alt right and conservative Christian crazies is enough to make anyone squeamish. It was fun to play in anonymity a bit. But I’m out of here. The floor is yours.
I hear the real Pete Larson is playing at Old Town tonight. Why don’t you head over there to celebrate? I’m sure he’ll love seeing you.
*do I ate = dominate
That’s what I was saying, Jean. The gathering is at Old Town Grill today. Everybody is welcome, but especially us Maytards. You wouldn’t be turned away. This is a totally inclusive event. If you see HW, buy him a beer. It’s the least you could do.
I knew you couldn’t stay away from your blog, Jean. I’ll admit, it was pretty stale here with Mark back at the helm, even if only for those brief few days.
Jean,
I am sorry I was not able to respond to your comments quickly. I will write what I wanted to write last night and then try to respond to your last comment later.
You said:
“One thing also became clear, one side is not more supportive of freedom of speech and discourse than another.”–Jean
I responded:
“I don’t think we watched the same video, Jean. What you say is “clear” was not clear at all. Maximillian was intentionally vague about whether or not he supported the “virtual shutdown” of Murray’s speech through the various tactics employed by the protesting students. The fact that Maximillian mis-represent what actually happened at the Murray speech leads me to believe that Maximillian would be unwilling to condemn the actions of the protestors which led to a severe degradation of the conversation at that event.”
Note that I am responding to your statement about “free speech AND DISCOURSE”. I was not really trying to comment about the legality of the protests one way or the other. For me conversations about free speech tend to be discussed and looked at from 2 different aspects:
1) “Free Speech” as defined by law, which permits most forms of speech, but also provides for certain legally unprotected exceptions.
2) “Free Speech” as a sacred moral ideal to be strived for but also as sort of a sacred moral ideal that ought to be recognized as such (especially at institutions of higher learning).
I call it “sacred” because I truly believe honest speaking and listening, which includes the battles of ideas as well as the sharing of experiences (no matter how diverse), is essential in the unfolding and bringing about, the best possible world for humans life. I truly believe that it is almost impossible to overestimate the value of discourse as a moral principle and human right!
However, we are not perfect and we do not live together perfectly. I know we also need to be aware of practical impediments to achieving the goal of full and free speech all the time. The legal system has accounted for these real and often valid impediments. For good and practical reasons we can not protect speech that will foreseeably cause incitement to violence. For good and practical reasons an assessment of the foreseeability of violence is often made relative to the mental and emotional state of the “heckler”, as well as, based upon an interpretation and prediction of the “hecklers” possible intent. While I agree with the application of the hecklers veto for practical purposes, I think it ought to be pointed out, at every turn, especially within the context of institutions of higher learning (!), that the application of a hecklers veto is a falling short of the sacred moral ideal of full and free speech.
When I called the panel “excellent” I probably should have said Jesse was excellent but that the panel on the whole represented a problem (to be discussed) both in what they chose to defend as well as what they failed to highlight around the free speech issue on college campuses. The issue, as I see it revolves around 2 very connected questions: 1) whether or not pre-emptive applications of hecklers veto and claims to foreseeable incitement are being recognized as a necessary but unfortunate failure on our part to achieve the moral and sacred ideal of free speech because of the human impulse toward to violence; and 2) whether or not there is evidence that there is a temptation to try to EXPLOIT heckler’s veto and incitement laws, as a legalistic loophole, without regard to moral principles, and in violation of the moral spirit underlying free speech laws, in a self-serving attempt, to prevent voices to be heard that one does not agree with, merely because one does not agree with those voices on federally funded college campuses. I think it is an open question. I think dismissing the validity of the question is a cause for concern in itself.
I don’t have time to go deeper into this, right now, Jean. I agree that Alvarez gave lip service to free speech and the value of debate but at the same time I really wasn’t “feeling it” and it made me wonder: Why do you think Alvarez was trying to conflate speech and violence? He did it several times…
Blah, blah, blah “free speech sacred” blah blah blah.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. It only works when all parties agree that the underlying social contract is valid. Free speech and all the other Bill of Rights stuff is secondary to that assumption. Clearly that may not be the case, else we wouldn’t be at such odds with one another.
“HW, I think Planned Parenthood’s founding by someone who believed in eugenics is about as relevant as the United States being founded by men who didn’t think women should be allowed to vote and who also believed in slavery.”
But those things are long gone and PP is still doing the same things today that Sanger believed at the start of it.
At least slavery is long gone “above ground” in the USA.
HW, the folks here who you’re trying to argue with, will never answer your questions on this subject. They always avoid answering pertinent questions. They don’t even realize that answering the challenging questions is how a person develops and refines their own understanding. Developing and refining their own understanding is not their goal.
Interesting reaction!
Should I infer that contracts you enter lack a sacred quality for you?What about your promises? Or is it just that the term “sacred” makes you feel triggered because of its common association with religious matters?
In my mind whether or not god exists is irrelevant in determining whether or not we OUGHT to strive toward free speech AS a moral ideal and an inessential tool on our quest toward unfolding the best possible world. Would you like to argue that free speech is not very important for Justice, peace, equality and stuff?
Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, I smell the blood of nihilism.
Nihilistic Arby’s – I found a new site more to my liking. See ya later.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nihilist_arbys?ref_src=twsrc%5Eappleios%7Ctwcamp%5Esafari%7Ctwgr%5Eprofile
I sincerely apologize, if I did in fact mistake the smell of Sad’s roast beef sandwich for the smell of Anonymous’ nihilism.
https://youtu.be/ytIqN84t_FQ
You’re arguing whether or not it’s a good rule that a player gets to collect the Monopoly bonus when they land on Free Parking when I’m saying a lot of people feel it’s not even worth playing when the banker cheats, the cards are stacked, and the dice are loaded.
What a relief. I thought Sad would never leave.
Maybe he’ll cleverly just start posting as “Anonymous.” I mean as a little experiment of sorts.
I like analogies. Can you draw out the analogy? I want to know exactly what you mean and what corresponds to what in your mind. What is the rule? What is the game? Who are the players? What is free parking? who is the banker? How does the banker cheat? how are the cards stacked? The dice are loaded in favor of what? Applied to what?
I hate to guess what you mean especially because I was talking with Jean, who was posing as Anonymous, who announced she was not going to post, but then an anonymous poster responded a bit….I’m sure you can understand how this conversation might seem vague and confusing to me….
HW, don’t know what universe you live in but slavery is quit legal in this country. Read your constitution.
13th. Amendment, Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.,
There is a reason our penal system has grown by leaps and bounds, privatized and filled with POC. Continue to stick your head in the sand.
Indeed. Slavery is still legal in this country and unfortunately still practiced. I read recently that there are more black men imprisoned (and thus put into forced labor aka slavery) now than there were enslaved at the start of the civil war but I have not fact checked that. It seems plausible though. Also Planned Parenthood in no way engages in eugenics. That is absurd.
I was ‘posing’ as ‘anonymous,’ FF? That’s another bizarre line of ‘reasoning.’
Why do you need to know if the commentor is me or anyone really in order to reply? Who is commenting should in no way impact your reply. I mean, if you are using reason not reactivity to respond…
It cracks me up the way you lean in to completely fatuous and overwrought analysis to appear to be using logic and sound reason. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of a peacocking strut by an obviously and hopelessly insecure puffed up man. The more you write, the easier it is to see the weakness of your argument, you Dolt. Especially when you try to turn it around on others, demanding a reply to some jacked up question and when you don’t get a reply, you think you’ve proven something. But you never even made an argument half the time. You throw out a pile of garbage that makes it impossible to address every detail. Then you keep pivoting to the questions. Or start the non specific personal insults. Like ‘phony’. Makes you sound like a disgruntled, insecure, self righteous teenager. Holden Canfield, but really old. Your discourse lacks integrity, FF. And even worse it’s boring. The only one who seems entertained is you.
I hope everybody can make it to the Old Town Tavern tonight. It would be great to have everybody there. We can even have nametag stickers with our screen-names here on the blog. Jean, you can wear one that says “Anonymous” if you want. I don’t think anyone will be a stickler about that.
I think I meant to say “posting” as Anonymous. It matters who I am talking to because the comment was vague and I thought it would give me clues into the possible meaning so I could respond a meaningful way. Is wanting to understand what was being said so that I could offer an appropriate response so strange?
In theory, I agree. Identity of the speaker is not relevant. Except when it is….It can become confusing, for me, at least as I was trying to make sense of the analogy that may or may not have been a follow up to my comment. To tell you the truth I was not even sure if the Monopoly analogy was directed toward FF. I thought I should ask. Is that so strange?
Your comments are strange. You really think context and continuity do not play a role in our ability to glean meaning and respond meaningfully? Is that what you are saying? If so, I am sorry but that is a very stupid thing to say.
Jean,
It was because you were falsely attributing weird lines of reasoning to me that I bothered to take the time out to identify what I find to be the underlying issue of Free Speech on Campus. If you do not agree with the areas that I found problematic in the panel discussion that is fine…Not sure what you think. I do know what I think and it seems different from what you think I think.
Jean,
You say it easy to see the weakness of my argument. Cool! What is the weakness of my argument?
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/7/19/17518086/selfie-will-storr-book-psychology-west
Now who was that last anonymous commenter? It wasn’t me.
Is Sad now commenting as Anonymous?
I think you make a good point. It cuts right to the heart of Mark’s thesis.
#notbecausesmartphones
It’s funny that people don’t understand why narcissism disorder is on the rise. Their other disorders keep them from understanding that I guess.
I hope you’re all on your way down here to Old Town Tavern for our first commenters gathering. I’m hoping Mark will do the keynote address.
I’m disappointed more commenters haven’t shown up, but I’m still hoping we’ll see a few more of you. Where are you Elf? What about you drugoon?
“HW, don’t know what universe you live in but slavery is quit legal in this country. Read your constitution.
13th. Amendment, Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.,
There is a reason our penal system has grown by leaps and bounds, privatized and filled with POC. Continue to stick your head in the sand.”
That is commonly known as imprisonment or incarceration. If you are duly convicted in our society you have to go to jail. I disagree with imprisonment for some offenses but some individuals represent such a threat they have to be separated from the rest of us. President Trump signed prison reform into law.
HW– Imprisonment is not the same thing as forced labor aka slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States
iRobert held a party and no one came. Is anyone surprised? Only iRobert.
FF “Why do you think Alvarez was trying to conflate speech and violence? He did it several times…” I think you similarly conflate disruptive speech with violence; You seem to feel it’s suppressive. You have taken my speech here as violent and/or threatening said so explicitly, even when there was zero chance of any violence. Alvarez is saying racist perspectives like Spencer and Murray’s represent a personal threat to the health and well being of people of color, like him. Just like Trump’s speech about people of color can be seen as presenting a direct threat to their well being. But Alvarez never argued for that speech to be banned. You feel the same way when I talk about white male privilege. It must feel like a personal threat. I guess to each his own re which kind of speech is actually more of a threat to the health and well being of citizens.
Forced labor in prison as a punishment for a crime is not the same as owning a human being just because you want to.
I don’t think prisoners should be forced to work. It’s a weak comparison between criminals and people who are bought and sold like chattel though.
Actually, some people did come to Old Town last night. If you weren’t one of them, you missed a good time. We drank some good spirits and listened to some good music. We’ll do it again soon, and everybody should join in.
Is it possible to be a criminal without being a prisoner ? Is it possible to be a prisoner without being a criminal?
Is this the “Anonymous” who was at the Old Town gathering last night? Or is this Sad?
Maybe we should have an Anonymous #1, an Annonymous #2, and so on, so we can keep the different conversations straight.
Maybe we should all post as “Anonymous” and that way we can avoid the hostility we get for being POC and women, or at least identifying as such through our gender-implying screennanes.
I think that’s a fine idea.
HW– Forced Labor used to produce goods for private for-profit enterprises at pennies and hour in slavery. Imprisonment is the punishment for crimes, not labor. The sentences no longer indicate labor. Prisoners charged but not convicted of crimes can not be forced to work, because of the 13th Amendment, which allows slavery for convicted felons. PS that forced labor is contracted by corporations who are effectively buying the effectively free labor, if not the person, of prisoners. The Prison Industrial Complex calls forced labor rehabilitation.
You also assume that all prisoners are fairly convicted.
Imagine if prisoners had the labor protections of everyone else. When they left prison, they would have their own resources for re-entry transition.
iRobert I’m sure those folks were there to see Pete, not you. How did they know how to find you. Did you hold up a Maytards sign? Or did they already know you? I have zero interest in meeting any of you. singly or as a group.
And yes, everyone should post anonymously.
Yes, I think Pete and the band were the main draw last night. Still, it was great to meet so many people who I only knew by their screen names and comments. Everybody complimented me on the Maytards sign. Everybody was in good spirits. It was totally the opposite of the way it is here. Everyone would have been glad to see you, Jean. You would have enjoyed the very positive atmosphere. Yes, I agree it had more to do with the good music and pleasant conpany than my little stunt. That’s ok. I am glad anyway.
There must be a tear in my tin foil hat because Jean seems to be reading my mind on this thread. I don’t have anything more to say, because it’s a futile waste of time. I yield the rest of my futile time to Jean.
I anonymously object to anonymity as anonymous responses to anonymous posts don’t generate the endorphin rush I get when it becomes clear that I’ve owned each and everyone of you.
You can’t own us, Anonynous. The 13th Amendment, remember?
#ThirteenthAnendment
Suppressive tactics are suppressive tactics.
Violence is violence.
Expressing an intent toward violence is expressing an intent toward violence.
Expressing an intent toward violence metaphorically is expressing an intent toward violence metaphorically.
Kindergarten is not first grade.
We know it’s you, Anonymous, from the “n” where there should be an “m” fat thumbs!
#fatthumbs
In FFland, there is no room for humor, satire, or dissent, despite the calls for “freedom of speech”. Can we at least sing, dance, and drink there?
“You also assume that all prisoners are fairly convicted.”
No I don’t. You make stuff up about other people to trrrryyyy to prop up your shitty arguments. I already said I don’t agree with forcing a prisoner to work if they don’t want to. Holding them captive is probably enough I guess. I imagine most prisoners do want to work. If they don’t they shouldn’t be punished for it. How many are punished for refusing to work? What is their punishment? I think they should just have a choice to do it at the rate they are offered or not. Slavery is when you own someone. These prisoners are paid, are they not?
Some would argue that people can be enslaved economically as well.
Alvarez said he thought the discussion about speech should not be framed around a discussion of “speech” (he added air quotes when he said the word “speech”) rather it should be framed around a discussion about violence. I’m sorry, was there someone on the the panel, in the hall, in Ann Arbor, that thought the right to do violent acts ought to be protected?
The question is: Why do you think Alvarez wants to conflate speech and violence?
I don’t want to conflate the two. A speech act is distinct from an act of violence.
This would be a better place if either everyone used the same name, names chosen at random every time, or if everyone used their real names.
We should try each of these ideas, Anonymous, and determine which one we prefer.
HW, your believe that chattel slavery is the only slavery that matters is a common misunderstanding. Those folks forced into “community service” as part of their sentence is a form of “involuntary servitude”. Most of the fire fighters protecting the National Forest and Parks are prison laborers who receive little if any pay for their “involuntary servitude”. The vast call centers that many of our biggest capitalist enterprises operate utilizing prison labor and are forms of “involuntary servitude”. Those in prisons have no civil or labor rights. They under pain of having their sentences extended can be compelled to work in unsafe and in the “free world” illegal work situations. To protest or strike is illegal and can result in extended prison time. The “war on drugs” was nothing but a pretext to incarcerate POC and poor people. The privatization of prisons, and the privatization of prison labor over the last three decades is one of the biggest shames on this country.
HW, you are so naive about how the world works and oblivious to anything that does not fit into your narrow world view.
I read somewhere. I can’t remember where. That a guy named Hyborian Warlord can be quoted as saying “I don’t agree with forcing a prisoner to work if they don’t want to”. It was an interesting sentence. Filled with meaning. I wish I could remember where I read that Hyborian Warlord said that sentence. I apologize. I probably sound naive and oblivious to many of you right now.
They love their narrative more than they love the truth. I wonder why?
If community service is slavery then abortion is certainly eugenics.
Thank you for being one of the few voices of reason, Flakes. Top honors
Boycott on the Co-op for using slave labor. Protest this white supremacist institution in our midst today. Open carry rally outside the doors. Anyone seen entering or leaving is the enemy and deserves no mercy.
“The “war on drugs” was nothing but a pretext to incarcerate POC and poor people. The privatization of prisons, and the privatization of prison labor over the last three decades is one of the biggest shames on this country.”
I agree with those points. I would add that it is a war on consciousness that affects all of us. They deign to criminalize the state of our own minds when we eat certain plants. It’s insane.
What’s up? You’re all fucked up now aren’t you, weebs? Going down to the Co-op? Johnny B. and da boyz are gonna be there and u know they got yr back. You got people like Jean and Lynne to stand in the front ranks and scream in customers’ eardrums so all you probably have to do is stand there with your black mask on trying to look intimidating.
Come on people! Let’s go!
NO FASCISTS!!!
NO KKK!!!
NO CO-OP USING SLAVES!!!
NO FASCISTS!!!
NO KKK!!!
NO CO-OP USING SLAVES!!!
NO FASCISTS!!!
NO KKK!!!
NO CO-OP USING SLAVES!!!
(Arhythmic drums and bleating horns kick in)
NO FASCISTS!!!
NO KKK!!!
NO CO-OP USING SLAVES!!!
…
HW is our R.Kelly. Hysterical.
Is Q talking about the co-op now?
Thanks for the kind words, HW.
I’m so Happy to see Sad back!
This Anonymous thing has such a Maoist feel to it.
Now if we could get everyone to wear bags over their heads.
…
(Megaphone blares in the din)
“WE NEED TO STOP THIS WHITE SUPREMACY!!! IT’S SLAVE LABOR! THE CO-OP USES PEOPLE OF COLOR FOR SLAVE LABOR!!! DON’T SHOP AT THE CO-OP!!! IF YOU DO YOU ARE A SICK, DISGUSTING WHITE SUPREMACIST AND WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN!!! SHOP AT FOODHOLE! I DON’T GIVE A SHIT!!! JUST DON’T BUY THIS WHITE SUPREMACIST CO-OP SHIT OR YOU ARE GONNA PAY!!!
(Din continues)
NO FASCISTS!!!
NO KKK!!!
NO CO-OP USING SLAVES!!!
…
Agitated HW jumps from his chair, frantically waving his arms and crying, muttering about the co-op. His friend Frosted Flakes holds him and try’s to console him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c40hBEm5uL0
“He forgot to say he liked Beer”
Frosted Flakes
Posted March 7, 2019 at 8:16 am | Permalink
Expressing an intent toward violence is expressing an intent toward violence. (Except HW, he’s my friend).
Yeah, it’s not any kind of point I am making in response to weebly. I am just posting random shit. That’s right, Sad.
There are people on this board who have said that FF and I are the kind of people that you need to get armed against. They have agitated for mass racial and political violence. To never ever even give that a second thought is supreme ignorance.
Anonymous,
Satire is not satire?
Maybe you just aren’t so good at it. It has to be both mocking AND funny.
If Anonymous does not find something funny, then something that is intended to be satire is not something that is intended to be satire?
Almost everything HW or Frosted Flakes say makes me laugh.
FF did you notice what happens at the 5:15 mark in the R. Kelly interview?
FF has demonstrated here many times that he doesn’t understand what satire is. He is one of those people who tend to think better in concrete ways and have trouble with abstractions. That is how HW thinks too which is why I imagine he thinks FF is so brilliant. I am sure that one of the reasons he accuses people of putting their narrative before truth is that he has trouble understanding the abstract concept that different individuals have different truths. He can only see his own more concrete “truth”
There are a lot different videos of the recent R. Kelly interview. The one shared here does not appear to go up to 5:15.
This is Maximillian’s closing statement:
“Someone’s free speech as we are currently defining it here is going to be infringed upon. Either, it is going to be those of us whom the white supremacists and neo nazis want to silence and exterminate; or, it is going to be the white supremacists themselves. There is no neutral option here. If you think you are defending the rights of all us by defending even the rights of someone like Richard Spencer, then you are in fact throwing the rights of the rest of us under the bus.”
This seemed like a prepared statement. Not off the cuff at all and it echoed other things he said that night. Is this statement in touch with the realities of legal interpretations of “free speech”? Is this statement in touch with the realities of interpretations of “free speech” as a moral principle?
If FF thinks that everyone here is stupid, why does he continue to try to argue issues with people here? Wouldn’t he have a better time talking with people who are smart? I mean, it must feel like he is trying to have debates with children.
Those are some interesting questions based upon misassumptions. Any theories you would like to offer?
FF, Maximillian’s closing statement seems in line with recent Supreme Court decision finding it ok to deny baking services to same sex couples. Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, claimed that the decision “reaffirmed that the Constitution protects freedom of speech, including speech of a religious content, and the state cannot compel speech against the will of the individual.” One persons “free speech” can superseed the rights of others, or so it now seems
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
HW– Slavery is bondage and forced labor. Pro sports players (not free agent) are owned, traded and sold via their contracts, but they are adequately compensated and can quit/leave, so it’s not slavery. People can reasonably disagree on whether forced prison labor constitutes slavery but, even if it does, it’s allowable under the 13th amendment, so there is no way to contest it. (Another aspect of slavery is being allowed no legal means of redress within the system of enslavement.)
Punishments vary for prisoners who do resist forced labor, but you can imagine. Some prisoners are not forced to work sure to age or disability, but most are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/opinion/national-prison-strike-slavery-.html
One persons free speech does not supersede another persons free speech in that decision. The court decision secured the same right for Charlie Craig (one of the plaintiffs) as it did for the baker. That is, Craig, an interior designer has the same right to refuse to be compelled toward expressing viewpoints that violate his personal/ religious beliefs. For example, the baker would not be able to compel Craig to paint a mural that says “Gays go to hell” in the back of his bake shop.
I am not saying I agree with the baker. I don’t.
Equal application of the same right is equal application of the same right. I am not sure what Maximillian is talking about when he says there is “no neutral option”. I am very curious though. The more I look at Maximillian’s statements the less sense his statements make.
\ The court quit clearly decided that some constitutional rights supersede other constitutional rights enjoyed by other individuals. Your attempt to confuse by stating, “One persons free speech does not supersede another persons free speech”. The issue was never about the baker compelling Craig to engage in homophobic activity. It was whether or not a business person engaged in providing services to the public can discriminate on the basis of “free speech”. ie. Does one persons right to “free speech” supersede another persons right to public services. Not the same rights but different rights. Not all rights are equal any more. The court clearly stated that it is legal to discriminate based on a very convoluted notion of speech. This is of course the same court that determined that inanimate creations of people have the same rights to “speech” as humans. The statement by Maximillian that ” you are in fact throwing the rights of the rest of us under the bus.” seems to be quit correct. I thought you were intellectually more honest. You asked,” Is this statement in touch with the realities of legal interpretations of “free speech”. But now you seem to want to run away from dealing with the answer.
1) “The issue was never about the baker compelling Craig to engage in homophobic activity.”
Obviously, Wobblie. I was using a hypothetical to illustrate the equal application of the same established right.
2) “[The issue was] does one persons right to “free speech” supersede another persons right to public services. Not the same rights but different rights.”
Not exactly true Wobblie…. We can say “the rights conflicted” and it might be helpful to analyze the issue by talking like that but only in an artificial way…The courts decided that the baker had the right to refuse to bake them a cake and the gay couple did not have the right to compel the baker to bake the wedding cake. Note there is not a conflict of rights. There is one right. There appeared to be a conflict of rights which is why they had the court case. The key is that the application of the same right is applied equally moving forward. That is, just because a person provides a public service does not mean that business entity is compelled to provide a service that involves an expression of support for ideas that are contrary to the convictions of the business owner. The key idea is we can not compel others to express themselves in a way that is contrary to their convictions. So, in this example, the fact that it was a very artistic and custom wedding cake and part of a ceremony was key in the courts decision. It says right in the decision that the bakery would need to sell a generic cake off the shelf to the gay couple. Your use of terms like “discrimination” and rejection of the obvious “free speech” component leads me to believe that you are reading summaries of the case from people who are not more interested in their particular agenda and less interested in the truth. (And I say that as someone who does not agree with the baker.)
Similarly, I think Alvarez was trying to talk about the bill for campus free speech that was floating around last year. The bill, among other things, tried to make it more difficult for protestors to stifle speech. That is, among other things, it proposed that “shutting down” with excessive noise making and other “de-platforming” tactics against an invited speaker would no longer be protected on campuses. The idea was to give more “space” to the speakers to express themselves in a meaningful way. You can look at it as a conflict between two rights but it makes even less sense here because you are literally dealing with the drawing of a line between the free speech rights of the protestor and the free speech rights of invited speaker on college campuses in Michigan. It is a line drawing issue. The law would apply equally with regard to whether or not the protestor is left or right; and without regard for whether or not the invited speaker is left or right, so, you see Maximillian’s statement does not make sense from that perspective either, but as I have been saying I am not sure what Maximillian meant. Does anybody really know what Maximillian was talking about here? If your read what he says much of what he says really does not make sense at all as far as I can tell…Anybody have any ideas?
Here is an observation:
1) Maximillian put air quotes around the term “speech” within a discussion about speech.
2) Maximillian (and a dean of students) also called free speech on campus a red herring.
3)Wobblie dismissed the umbrella term of “free speech” as “convoluted” in the gay cake case apparently not understanding a broad conception of expressiveness.
4) I was mocked for calling locating “free speech” within the realm of sacred morality.
…And all those judgments pass-by review as unquestionably normal, yet nobody wants to ponder why Maximillian, a 12 year college Phd student and lecturer, at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, apparently lacks the cognitive skills to differentiate between a speech act and an act of violence. How is that not interesting?
FF– People who disagree with you are not inherently stupid. You are dispositionally incapable of understanding Alvarez position. That does not make you smarter than he is. I’m pretty sure he has a bead on your perspective. Asking the rest of us to explain another person’s perspective is absurd. Why don’t you write Alvarez a letter? I’m sure he’ll be amused.
You’re simply outmanned on this one.
https://thebaffler.com/authors/maximillian-alvarez
Contrast Maximillian’s closing remarks with Jesse’s closing remarks. Jesse said:
“There was one listener who said ‘the side of free speech is the side of ethnic extermination’. And I think it is important for me as an individual, who is Jewish, from the descendants of folks who survived ethnic extermination, to say: I am unequivocally and unapologetically on the side of free speech and I am most certainly not on the side of bigots that want to exterminate. And it is important to underscore that I can be both and SHOULD be both.”
Crystal clarity from the undergrad, alongside a panel of thoroughly educated adults, who at every turn tried to dismiss his experiences, in service to a neo-marxist orthodoxy, that sustains itself on identity politics at the expense of the individual, and that shows supreme concern for the preservation and securing of its own access to more power, while demonstrating zero concern for its own orientation to truth or morality.
Yeah Jean.
I am dispositionally incapable of understanding the person of colors position. Kind of like the undergrad Jew isn’t positioned well to understand the threat posed by ethnic exterminators.
He conflates what should not be conflated because he is trying to exploit legalistic loopholes in order preserve his position of power within a system that has a lot of goodies to offer. He has a niche. It is good for him. Bad for the world. End of story.
“…does not mean that business entity is compelled to provide a service that involves an expression of support for ideas that are contrary to the convictions of the business owner. The key idea is we can not compel others to express themselves in a way that is contrary to their convictions.”
Well said. When people were given the right to vote whether homosexual marriage be allowed, 60 – 80% were opposed in states across our nation, including Michigan, whose ballot issue was more far reaching than any other state’s. Then SCOTUS ruled and it became the law of the land. Overnight, the MSM polls claimed it was supported by the majority. Not likely.
But even if that were the case, the majority can’t compel individuals to alter their sincerely held beliefs, and no one should be compelled to participate, in any fashion, in an affirmation of an activity to which they are morally opposed.
There are a lot of activities that are legal that I would never consider doing myself. An individual is free to participate, but can’t require others to join in. The first amendment does include actions and the freedom of speech trumps all others. But not when the actions prevent others from exercising their freedom.
Those that make noise to drown out the speaker cross that line. Not baking a cake does not in any way prevent anyone from getting married. Apples and oranges…
Uh, first amendment only pertains to government infringement on free speech. Blah blah blah what you want in a public place and if others don’t like it don’t be surprised if they blah blah blah back. If it’s really disliked then they might blah blah blah back really loudly.
Anonymous,
That summary of free speech is the equivalent of Maximillian rolling his eyes and using air quotes when he used the term “speech” in a discussion about speech when the thing at issue was a speech act. Your attempt at dismissiveness is indicative of the problem many are trying to address around the issue of campus free speech.
The government can not compel the baker to express himself in a way that participates in, and gives support to, the symbolic order of a wedding ceremony, he does not want to support.
Likewise, the government is obligated, to not fund, public entities that withhold public space for speaking if the withholding is based on the content of the speech. The issue is the legalistic loopholes that seem to revolve around attempts at exploiting the heckler’s veto. The other thing at issue is whether or not specific campus are doing a good enough job educating their students and faculty about the moral spirit that the UN’s declaration and the first amendment is based in.
FF I said nothing about Mr. Alvaraez’ race. You threw that in. When I said you were dispositionally incapable of seeing his perspective, I mean that you have erected barriers to understanding liberal perspectives. I was talking about the double standard that infects your reasoning, onto which you apply a heavy application of faux-logical cover-up, but which is nonetheless apparent to any who engage you.
Your comment and jump to a false conclusion about what I meant simply proves my point. I truly think you should engage Mr Alvarez directly since his work is of such great interest to you.
There is no discourse of any merit left in this forum’s comment section.
I often wonder if HW comes here so often because there’s no place among left-leaning internet sites where anyone else will indulge him. By all accounts, Q followers are increasingly personally isolated.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/christmas-is-the-loneliest-time-for-qanon-fans.
“When I said you were dispositionally incapable of seeing his perspective, I mean that you have erected barriers to understanding liberal perspectives. I was talking about the double standard that infects your reasoning, onto which you apply a heavy application of faux-logical cover-up, but which is nonetheless apparent to any who engage you.”
That statement means nothing to me. You are not engaging in critique, Jean. Your statement appears to me as an abstract word salad with bullshit dressing on top. Unless you can get specific about the “erected barriers”, the “double standards”, the “infected reasoning”, the “faux-logic” and how I apply those kinds of “mechanisms” within particular arguments then you are simply asking me to buy your bullshit word salad for lunch. No thanks.
The hilarious thing to me is you are right though. You did not say anything about race. I assumed that you were making a claim about racial perspectives when you asserted I was dispositionally incapable of understanding his perspective. But that does not get you off the hook, Jean. Is it possible to understand Maximillian’s position without taking into account his reliance of racial groupings, and the different perspectives they have, within his argument? If not, then you are accusing of me of not being capable of understanding his perspective; while simultaneously pretending I ought to be able to understand his position without accounting for the very thing that he is attempting to use as justification for his impulse to conflate speech acts with acts of violence. That is, he is using different racial perspectives for a justification of his conflating of speech acts with acts of violence.
Don’t take my word for it. Here is what Maximillian said:
“This is not just about speech. This is about the violence that logically follows when you have man on stage preaching ethnic cleansing, apartheid, forced migration, and racial domination. That is not just an air-ey idea in a marketplace [of ideas]. This is actual violence that is coming down on our community. And it is what we are trying to fight against. It would be great if we could just ignore it. But I don’t think that you can just…as any person of color can tell you…Sometimes it comes in your face whether you are trying to ignore it or not.”
Violence LOGICALLY follows speech? Huh?
Speech is not just ideas it is “ACTUAL VIOLENCE coming down on our community? Huh?
For the record. I think Maximillian is very smart. I just think he at some point made the decision to bet on the wrong horse. A horse that is getting old and arthritic and is not going to be winning any races in the foreseeable future.
FF, have you entered the sweepstakes to have dinner with Donald Trump?
“Don’t miss out on this once in a lifetime opportunity. I’m really the big winner here, because I get the chance to have dinner with you.
Sign up by March 15 at 11:59 PM EST to be automatically entered at a chance to win an exclusive dinner with me, President Trump.”
https://action.donaldjtrump.com/dinner-in-oh-sweepstakes-entry
I’m hoping Mark enters and wins, and provides us an exclusive MM interview with DJT.
Haha.
For the record, iRobert. I hope you don’t believe the few people who say your comments are not appreciated. You are a very funny and smart person. This comment made my day…
I am afraid of winning because Trump would not like me very much after I refused to eat the complimentary Big Mac or Chik-Fil-A sandwich. If I win I will definitely give away my free dinner to Mark.
Thanks, FF. I do have to dumb my humor down quite a bit for Mark and Jean. I apologize for that, since I can tell you could handle my more sophisticated comedy material. But you know how it is – you have to play to your audience. That’s just showbiz.
This blog used to have several folks with excellent comedic instincts who would comment regularly. They all seem to have been driven off by a humorless few who have really brought down the energy of the place. Mark used to be less angry in his humor too. He had more range back then. I fear those days will not return.
Wonder why they left, iRobert? You would think your genius for comedy and brilliant insights would draw them all back, right?
We know why they left, Jean.
And, like I told FF, I dumb everything I say here down for the audience. I’m pretty sure none of those who were driven off are in a hurry to return. They might slowly if the ugliness were to subside.
Writing from an undisclosed location
Posted March 7, 2019 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
FF has demonstrated here many times that he doesn’t understand what satire is. He is one of those people who tend to think better in concrete ways and have trouble with abstractions. That is how HW thinks too which is why I imagine he thinks FF is so brilliant. I am sure that one of the reasons he accuses people of putting their narrative before truth is that he has trouble understanding the abstract concept that different individuals have different truths. He can only see his own more concrete “truth”
From what undisclosed location of the brain did Waldo write this dumb comment? I am guessing Limbic.
When someone values reasoning from evidence it is not a sign that they are not good at abstract thinking.
Conversely, being very poor at applying abstract-generalities to concrete-particular situations in an appropriate manner is not an indicator that you are good at thinking abstractly.
My advice: Don’t let abstract thinking without regard for evidence be your alibi for your failure to participate in reality.
FF The Limbic system is the center of emotion AND memory and learning. People who get strokes that affect the limbic system are rendered unable to make decisions or come to conclusions. Your idea that one part of the brain is more reasoned than others or even more useful to reason than the Limbic system is reductive and wrong. Just another one of your blind spots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system
iRobert– yes, you are clearly too intelligent for me to comprehend. THAT explains it.
Anonymous
Posted March 8, 2019 at 6:32 pm | Permalink
FF The Limbic system is the center of emotion AND memory and learning. People who get strokes that affect the limbic system are rendered unable to make decisions or come to conclusions. Your idea that one part of the brain is more reasoned than others or even more useful to reason than the Limbic system is reductive and wrong. Just another one of your blind spots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system
So, your guess is that Waldo was posting that dumb comment from a place smarter than the lower east side of Jean’s dumb dumb head? Ok. Your guess is as good as mine. I will point out that Limbic is still a possibility though, because Jean never forgets to decide to come to conclusions.
Jean – “iRobert– yes, you are clearly too intelligent for me to comprehend. THAT explains it.”
I’m always just jerking your chain, Jean.
…and thank God for that chain!
FF– You are really letting your intelligence shine with that comment.
PS I let the computer decide who I will sign in as on MM.com most of the time.
Shouldn’t Whitnore Lake be required to host a hip hop festival just like Water Hill should be? Why should you hicks get a pass?
“I often wonder if HW comes here so often because there’s no place among left-leaning internet sites where anyone else will indulge him. By all accounts, Q followers are increasingly personally isolated.”
I don’t really post on many sites. I think it is an interesting prospect to talk to people online who I might run into around town.
The Q movement is growing. Even someone as ignorant as you can see that. You think little pitty-pat jabs are going to do anything us?
But enough about you, Jean. Let’s talk about what a disappointment Mark has turned out to be.
This goes out to Jean. Twice on Fridays.
https://youtu.be/tvTRZJ-4EyI
https://youtu.be/JQbjS0_ZfJ0
I truly believe anything is possible even in Whitmore Lake.
Don’t worry about it. I let my computer decide which Kendrick song to play for you. I was crossing my fingers for “humble” but no such luck.
https://youtu.be/JQbjS0_ZfJ0
Of course in Hobby Lobby the court, also on 1st. Amendment grounds held that “closely held corporations” (what ever the hell that is) can deny health care services to its employees. How providing legal health services to people becomes an exercise of the 1st. Amendment is yet another example of throwing other people rights under the bus in favor of those who are more politically connected. We all know that this court makes its decisions based on the political interest of the few and not the rights of the many. The Roberts courts decisions in many respects are, abstract word salad with bullshit dressing on top. Money buying political influence =free speech, discrimination in public accommodations=free speech. Once you have defined every activity as an exercise in “free speech”, all other rights end up becoming secondary. Giving human rights to Corporations has killed our Republic. How a Corporation can have “religious” believes and exercise those beliefs is the level of absurdity that the Roberts court has created. Meanwhile, we erect “free speech zones” for human people, and arrest you for exercising your right outside the zone.
The amendments to our constitution our supposed to be a shield to protect individuals from the tyranny of the state. Our 14th. Amendment was supposed to ensure that all people were protected by those amendments. The Court in Gore v Bush, and in many subsequent rulings since have turned the amendments meant to shield us into swords used to benefit the interests of the rich and powerful. How “corporate” entities can enjoy and exercise the same rights as an individual human being should tell you all you need to know about the corruption of our Republic.
This statement ““…does not mean that business entity is compelled to provide a service that involves an expression of support for ideas that are contrary to the convictions of the business owner. The key idea is we can not compel others to express themselves in a way that is contrary to their convictions.” is typical of attempts to obfuscate what the court has done. Corporate entities can not by definition and law by a “singular” business owner. For reference these entities all are “closely’ held,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-10-largest-privately-held-companies-in-america/ss-BBiKtaL
And of course the Trump Organization is also “closely held”. Yep, word salads with bullshit on top
The Supreme Court ruled correctly in the Hobby Lobby case. A corporation isn’t an inanimate “thing” , but a group of people who have pooled their resources to sustain a business. SCOTUS recognized that members of a group don’t lose their individual rights.
Why should government step in and tell business owners that they must pay their employees expenses to kill another human life? Had SCOTUS ruled differently, the corporation would have dissolved and all employees would have lost their jobs. How would this have been a better outcome?
I think when people engage in an activity that they know in their hearts is inherently wrong, they seek external affirmation. As if being legal or supported by others makes it acceptable. But those who choose to do the right thing, do so regardless of others opinions.
Abortion isn’t healthcare. It’s purpose is to kill at least half the patients.
Re Waterhill Music Festival.
“Dear Water Hill Musician,
After 8 years of organizing the Water Hill Music Fest, and after careful consideration, we’ve decided it’s time to bring it to an end. The decision stems from personal priorities, concern for public safety, and the challenge of maintaining the festival’s neighbor-to-neighbor, noncommercial character.
We enjoyed seeing the festival help neighbors get to know each another better and foster an appreciation of home-made music. We like to think it may have encouraged a willingness to try new things.
May the end of one thing make an opening for new possibilities. They say when a tree falls it lets the light in. We look forward to seeing what creative activities might emerge in our neighborhood’s future.
We are especially grateful to all of the musicians who participated. You were the original inspiration for the event and we’re glad the neighborhood had a chance to appreciate the cultural richness of our hill.
Claire and Paul Tinkerhess”
PS I’m not interested in requiring anyone to do anything, but the Waterhill Festival did not reflect its community fully. Last year the police were called on a lifelong Black resident pushing a mower to a neighbor’s house to mow the lawn. I don’t know why the Tinkerhess’s have ended it or why they didn’t just pass the torch. Music festivals are great. They should reflect the community in which they are situated. Those that are not will reasonably receive criticism. Those that rebrand the name of their neighborhood before launching a music festival in the wake of rampant gentrification (including preventing a housing development on the Black Elks property by the Black Elks 10 years ago) followed by even more rampant gentrification will reasonably be even more held to account.
EOS– Abortion isn’t legal so that people who seek them can feel ‘affirmed.’ It’s legal so that they can be safe and regulated. Women have always sought ways to prevent and end pregnancies and they always will. BEcause reproductive agency is critical to their well-being and the well-being of their children. (No a fetus is not a child.)
By your same argument, you are seeking the ‘affirmation’ of your perspective by making abortion illegal. If you truly did not care about what other’s think or believe, you would hold your own council re abortion and not require others to be held to your moral standards. It’s clear that very few want to be held to those standards. If you disapprove of abortion, don’t have one.
“those who choose to do the right thing, do so regardless of others opinions.” — you should try to live by that more. Imagine if you just stop bothering yourself with what others choose to do and lived your own best life by your own standards.
With the Water Hill Music Festival now gone, we have a great opportunity to establish our Water Hill Hip Hop Festival. It could be a traveling festival with its next stop in Whitmore Lake.
EOS, “The Supreme Court ruled correctly in the Hobby Lobby case. A corporation isn’t an inanimate “thing” , but a group of people who have pooled their resources to sustain a business. SCOTUS recognized that members of a group don’t lose their individual rights.” and my majority control of the corporation superseeds your individual rights as a minority owner, word salads with bullshit on top.
“Abortion isn’t healthcare. It’s purpose is to kill at least half the patients.” and birth control equals abortion, word salads with bullshit on top. For this Court money and power talks and individual rights get to take a walk. As I mentioned earlier, The statement by Maximillian that ” you are in fact throwing the rights of the rest of us under the bus.” seems to be quit correct. I thought you were intellectually more honest. You asked,” Is this statement in touch with the realities of legal interpretations of “free speech”. But now you seem to want to run away from dealing with the answer.
No. I never had an abortion nor have I ever coerced anyone to get an abortion. Whether or not it is legal is not my concern. I’m not trying to change any law, merely speaking to discourage others from killing their children. Exercising my personal freedom for those who have been denied a life. I don’t think people should feel safe while killing others.
I’m curious about what EOS and FF’s feel about extending the “free speech” rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby and the owner of the Colorado bakery to the employee’s of businesses. It is very established law that when you work for some one, you loose your constitutional protection to “free speech” in the workplace, and as the “workplace” has grown to include working from home and elsewhere so has the shrinking of ones rights. EOS, you included this quote above, “…does not mean that business entity is compelled to provide a service that involves an expression of support for ideas that are contrary to the convictions of the business owner. The key idea is we can not compel others to express themselves in a way that is contrary to their convictions.” If you were fired by a business entity because you didn’t want to make a cake for a gay couple, do you think you would enjoy the same protection as the Colorado bakery owner? If you think you should, what are you doing to expand this right to “speech” to all of us?
@wobblie,
I wouldn’t be need to be fired for not baking a cake for a homosexual marriage. I would quit first.
Employees are not afforded the same voice in a business as the owner. The owner gets to make the decisions and the employee is free to leave if they find it disagreeable.
Thank you EOS. We should all be clear now, Free Speech is not a right but a privilege the State awards to privileged individuals. As a privilege it can be granted or revoked. Speaking of the 1t. amendment, John Pilger had this to say
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/04/the-prisoner-says-no-to-big-brother/
and of course one of the peoples true defenders of freedom of thought is off to jail again, thank you Chelsea Manning for being one of the most courageous souls of my time.
EOS doesn’t believe abortions are health care. EOS doesn’t believe women seeking abortions should be safe. EOS calls herself pro-life.
EOS believes her positions are logically consistent.
Frosted Flakes
Posted March 7, 2019 at 3:00 pm | Permalink
This is Maximillian’s closing statement:
“Someone’s free speech as we are currently defining it here is going to be infringed upon. Either, it is going to be those of us whom the white supremacists and neo nazis want to silence and exterminate; or, it is going to be the white supremacists themselves. There is no neutral option here. If you think you are defending the rights of all us by defending even the rights of someone like Richard Spencer, then you are in fact throwing the rights of the rest of us under the bus.”
This seemed like a prepared statement. Not off the cuff at all and it echoed other things he said that night. Is this statement in touch with the realities of legal interpretations of “free speech”? Is this statement in touch with the realities of interpretations of “free speech” as a moral principle?
Wobblie,
The issue of the panel was free speech on campus. My questions about the legal interpretations of “free speech” had to do with legal interpretations of “free speech” as it pertains to speakers on campuses in general and within the confines of that particular discussion.
You raise some interesting issues which don’t appear to me as immediately related to my concerns. That is, I don’t think you are necessarily responding with the issue at hand. Which is ok. Maybe that was not your goal. If your goal in bringing up multiple court cases is to show that we need to be careful about how we define free speech then I agree with you. If I was trying to prove what I think you are trying to prove I would have gone straight to “free speech” as a form of monetary contribution to campaigns without limits. That definition seems extremely problematic to me and I think we agree upon that…I just don’t see how we are on the same page with what the particular issues are surrounding campus free speech….
If you are addressing the Campus Free Speech issue, we were discussing earlier, then I am completely missing your point… Clarify if you want….I will read what you have to say….I am short on time at the moment. I am failing to see your point.
Free speech is an inalienable right. No government can grant it to anyone. Wobblie, you can’t win an argument by attributing ideas to another that weren’t expressed or implied.
Jean,
I don’t think an armed robber should feel safe as he shoots a bank teller either. Yes, I’m Pro-life and my focus is on the innocent victim.
FF’s I brought up the court cases, and the subsequent discussion as a demonstration of the legal interpretations of “free speech”. I believed I was directly responding to your queries,” Is this statement in touch with the realities of legal interpretations of “free speech”? Is this statement in touch with the realities of interpretations of “free speech” as a moral principle?”
You have about as much “right” to “free speech” on campus as you do in the workplace. If you are rich and powerful, go at it. If you are poor or week your fired, suspended, flunked, put on probation disciplined and coerced in numerous ways.
EOS your assertion, “Free speech is an inalienable right. No government can grant it to anyone. ” Is cute but not in touch with the way the world works. Look at the way the rich and powerful have treated Assange. He does not make the news, Wikileaks just reports what others give it, and he has been imprisoned for 6 years. Do that to the Publisher of the New York Times, or Jeff Bezo the owner of the Washington Post. The state in its “gag” orders regularly take away that right mostly recently to Stone I believe. Everyone of the slaves incarcerated in our prisons loose this right. If you can deprive some one of a “right” it is not a right but a privilege.
But the stuff you are bringing up, as far as I can tell, really isn’t related to legal interpretations of speech as it pertains to current campus free speech issues.
You said:
“You have about as much “right” to “free speech” on campus as you do in the workplace. If you are rich and powerful, go at it. If you are poor or week your fired, suspended, flunked, put on probation disciplined and coerced in numerous ways.
Equal application of protections is the plan without regard to left/right. Failure is a problem.
Which way is the LSA leaning in terms of political orthodoxy? Who is power? Who is the minority?
Are you imploring us to be more sensitive to the expressed experiences of Jesse Arms? He is clearly a minority voice within LSA environment. Some of this stuff is hard to prove but I will laugh in anybodies face that says that the vast majority of courses offered at LSA are not biased in favor of liberal voices in terms of classroom discussions and grading. I would guess 90 percent are from a liberal perspective and 1/2 are from a neo-marxist perspective of varying degrees. And it is very troubling to realize that some of the teachers, as reps of the LSA orthodoxy, who are grading papers, are so deep into the cult-think of the orthodoxy, that they do not immediately recognize the difference between a speech act and an act of violence. Those Majority-cult- voices are charged with evaluation and advancement? In charge of shutting down voices with de-platforming tactics by exploiting heckler’s veto loopholes?
Very troubling indeed. I am glad to hear we both share Jesse’s concerns Wobblie.
But EOS if your gay neighbors got married and brought you a piece of cake could you eat it?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/laughingindisbelief/2017/05/kittens-tell-seven-tenets-satanic-temple/
FF, it is a shame that you do not see how the recent court decisions on “free speech”, ie. (corporations have the same right to speech as humans, speech is money, speech is the right of businesses to discriminate, speech that you oppose based on religious beliefs cannot be imposed on your business), in the context that humans have no right to free speech in the work place, that humans can be prosecuted and imprisoned for speaking in unauthorized zones and that humans can be deprived of their “right” to free speech with or without due process is not related to current campus free speech issues. So don’t worry given the standards created by the court we will soon see decisions that support banning the teaching of science that excludes references to god. We will soon see court decisions that support bans on teaching of science that references humans burning carbon as the source of global warming. And instead we will all be taught to repeat the mantra “freedom of speech is an inalienable right” while all the while only the rich and powerful will be able to exercise that “right”.
Speech on university campuses by students remains remarkably “free” but not so much for workers of which I include academics whose speech is becoming more and more regulated every day.
Wobblie,
I don’t disagree or agree with you about calling things inalienable rights. I don’t thing it matters one way or the other. Who cares? We all already agree that Free Speech is extremely important. It does not need to be legitimized. People can call it god given if they want. God given or not it doesn’t add or subtract to the agreed upon fact that freedom of speech is extremely important for human living together….You win zero points there.
Saying that you proved something is not proving something. I can not “see” connections that are not there. If you think there a worthwhile connection between the Hobby Lobby case and Campus Free speech issues then you should demonstrate the connection. You have not.
I do see money as free speech for campaign contributions as very problematic but it really does not relate to the issue of campus speech does it? If it does then try to make an argument for it.
We demonstrated that the gay wedding cake case is not simply an example of using the umbrella term “speech” to allow people to discriminate, like you suggest. We just demonstrated that your notion you held was false. Did you forget already?
Free speech being limited in employee/ employer relationships is nothing new. And yes Universities are workplaces. And yes Alvarez did mention that there have been professors who have been disciplined/ and fired when their speech has been deemed inappropriate. I don’t have time to check it out right now but Alvarez did list of 4 or 5 professors that were in trouble for things they said. If we are going to demonstrate that there is a trend of injustice censorship/firing/reprimands then we will need to investigate individual cases. Maybe we should use Alvarez’ list and go from there? There might be something there? Let’s check it out when we have time. But you have demonstrated nothing so far Wobblie. Nothing!
Jean has a name for what you are doing. She calls it being good at abstract thinking :)
“A number of students have voiced—
Both at a recent forum and
Maybe one or two other times—
Their acute and ongoing hurt,
Frustration, and fatigue surrounding
The underrepresented student experience
On campus and the slow pace of change
In bringing racial equity to our community.
But I want students at this illustrious university
To know at a deep and personal level
That you are valued here, even if
It doesn’t always feel that way—
And even if a review of the university’s
Old yearbooks revealed that
They include lynching references, racial slurs,
And photos of students wearing blackface—
And even if we also have yearbook photos
Of two current Deans of Admissions
Posing in front of the Confederate flag
When they were undergraduates here—
And even if many of you have spoken of
An ongoing legacy of racism at the university
That continues to impact campus culture.
Yes, you are valued.
Whew! That was easy! Because, you see,
I’m not just a university president;
I’m also a magician, which means that
When I say things out loud,
They actually come true. Poof!!!!
It’s a super-great skill, and I also have a wand,
A top hat, and an overworked pet rabbit
Named Barbara.
The university pledges to continue to
Promise that it will create a more diverse
And inclusive community,
While not actually doing anything at all,
Apart from the occasional email
From yours truly about the
Importance of “dialogues,” where
One side of these dialogues is,
Um, I guess the racists?
I am committed to hearing both sides
Of all issues, especially those issues that
Do not have two sides.”
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-poem-about-your-universitys-absolute-intention-to-absolutely-deal-with-institutional-racism-seriously-absolutely-any-minute-now-and-certainly-one-day
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-rap-music.html
@anon,
Can I eat cake? Yes. Can I bake a cake? Yes. Can I attend a homosexual wedding? Yes.
But will I? It depends on the circumstances.
FF, I am s0rry that you are unable to see how these court decisions impact campus life. The real issue of the lack of free speech on campus is what happens to academics who speak out side the political consensus. Ward Churchill comes to mind. Or how about locally John Cheney-Lippold who was disciplined for not speaking. His refusal to write a recommendation letter for a student resulted in substantial retaliatory action by his employer. How that is substantively different from the baker I wonder. The two difference that I can see is, the one EOS briefly identified ie. Cheney-Lippold is just a lowly worker and has not right to free speech–in fact he must say what his employer directs him to say even if it is against his believes. And two, the baker shrouded his bigotry in acceptable religious language. A secularist does not have the same rights as the religious, or so it seems.
I can see FF, that you have very little care for things that don’t immediately impact you–a typical conservative outlook–no problem supporting suppression of rights of people you don’t necessarily agree with, but you will raise a stink if you don’t get to hear what your biases demand.
And of course the other difference is that the owner of the bakery was engaging in socially and politically acceptable speech while Cheney-Lippold was taking a position at odds with the dominate and controlling political perspective.
Those who speak the language of the ruling elites will always have their voices broadcast, not so much for the dissident.
Wobblie,
I don’t want to be accused of trying to control the conversation but let me state the obvious: The topic of the UM panel, which was under discussion, was not about workplace free speech. Alvarez did bring it up but in my opinion he was bringing it up to avoid addressing the issue of 3 things: 1) Speakers rights, like Murray and Spencer, to speak at universities without being censored because of the content of their speech; and 2) The exploitation of the heckler’s veto to shut down and prevent unpopular speeches on campus; and 3) the actual bill for campus free speech being floated around at the time and how it was a response to #1 and #2.
Like Alvarez you are free to avoid the issue at hand by bringing up other things related to free speech. You are also free to declare that #1, #2, and #3 are not “the real issue”. But your avoidance and your declarations do not, in anyway, demonstrate that #1, #2, and #3 are not an issue.
I think you are bringing up a lot of really great free speech issues that do are not related to the topic at hand. I demonstrated the disconnect in the gay wedding cake case… I for sure agree with some of the things that you find problematic around other cases…Which is why I find it so odd that you are lacing these superficial shoutouts to issues with personal attacks like when you say I “have very little care for things that do not immediately impact [me]” or when you are “sorry that [I am] unable to see” how right you are because of my bias or “intellectual dishonesty” on my part . It’s a very phony way to argue Wobblie.
I think the thing that scares you the most is how much we probably agree. Part of the reason people love their narrative more than they love the truth is because they love the role that believe themselves to be playing inside of their narrative. You, like so many others on mm.com, love to think of yourself as a beautiful soul fighting against something ugly and soulless.
Do you have anything to say about #1, #2, or #3? Rejecting #1, #2, or #3 is fine too but you need to demonstrate why those 3 things ought to be rejected. Like you, Alvarez did no such thing; rather you guys are using the rhetoric of avoidance and dismissal rather than using critical thinking. You have an excuse Wobblie. Alvarez does not.
Real attacks on the 1st. Amendment of course get bi-partisan support. At least one candidate for President wants to stand up for our rights. Thank you Tulsi for speaking up.
1/3 If the government can change the designation of @Wikileaks from being a news organization (Obama Admin’s designation of Wikileaks) to a hostile intelligence agency (Trump Admin’s designation), then…
2/3 …any entity – online and offline – is in danger of being designated a ‘hostile intelligence service’ if they carry out investigative reporting that the US government or a particular administration considers to be hostile to itself. This will have a chilling…3/3 …effect on investigative reporting of powerful government agencies or officials, including the president, intel agencies, etc. This is a serious breach of our constitutional freedoms and every American – Democrat, Republican or Independent – must stand up against it.
FF–you do not set my agenda. If you talked about ideas that had any relevance to my life maybe I would engage your ideas. By the way, any thing I say “personally” about you is simply me engaging in transference.
Wobblie,
Obviously I do not set your agenda, which is why I, on multiple occasions, was careful to say you are free discuss whatever you want. I am pointing out that what you think is critical thinking and demonstration is actually just the rhetoric of avoidance and dismissal. Am I allowed to point out that you are not addressing an issue after you pretend that you addressed an issue?
I am starting a gofundme page for Jesse Arms. The goal is to raise $250,000. That dollar amount is the approximate cost of 8 more years of tuition/room and board plus a small stipend. I just hate to think we let a bright person like Jesse slip through the cracks. We can’t let Jesse be deprived of the 8 more years of LSA education that is required for him to understand that speech act is an actual act of violence.
Can I count on your support Wobblie?
no, I am giving my spare cash to the Tulsi Gabbard 2020 campaign
Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy. Surveilling, tracking & unreasonably detaining anyone who is not suspected of a crime—especially journalists doing their job—is an abuse of authority & should be investigated. tulsi.to/fotp #FreedomOfThePress #TULSI2020
I think Wobblie is unknowingly illustrating a big part of the problem on campus.
The Neo-Marxist-cult that has control over many humanities departments is so comfortable with its place within their particular university systems that it’s cult-leadership (lecturers, grad students, professors) often act as if they have forgotten that critical thinking/ honest debate is the diametric opposite of the emotional rhetoric and slogans they employ to control others, gain more followers, and increase the power of their cult.
Jesse doesn’t need your help, FF. It’s comical watching the solid discourse presented in that 1A panel be unraveled into political brinksmanship and absurdity here on MM.com Everyone here seems more interested in confirming their own bias and parading it around thanin learning anything from anyone, much less accepting the fundamental (small l) liberal and (small d) democratic principle that multiple perspectives can all hold truths and usefully illuminate aspects of any situation/scenario, but that none reveal the whole truth of anything.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesse-arm-104a77b8
No one should be surprised that Jesse is well employed among NYC powerful elites as a political and business operative while Alvarez is continuing his scholarship and writing for mostly online media outlets. Who has more power in the world? It’s a given that they both have more power, and deservedly so, than any regular commenter here.
Good point Jean.
Like any successful cult, humanities departments should be able to lure young successful business people like Jesse back into the fold. Successful cults almost always sustain themselves by donations made by rich devotees like Jesse….Or, in other cases, less successful cults are almost entirely sustained through tax dollars.
#becausenobodywouldjointhatcultiftheyhadtopayforit
UM takes very few public funds anymore (under 15% of general funds come from the state and that does not include any donation $$’s). Even with Alvarez on board, they manage to maintain and grow a 12 billion dollar endowment, within the top 10 in the country, and the gifts just keep on coming.
Most businesses would like to do as well.
FF- I suggest you and your conservative colleagues head on over to Cbo tomorrow and put your money where your mouth is: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/michigan-we-build-the-wall-townhall-tickets-57801522911
I was careful, in my comment, to not accuse UM humanities of being an unsuccessful cult, Jean. It would be interesting to trace the moneys back to particular industries. I’m sure UM is killing it within the wealthy workplace democracy crowd.
I know the reality of Free Speech is secondary to this discussion but, today just happens to be the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision affirming the incarceration of Eugen Debbs for speaking out against WWI. Thrown in prison under the same law they want to use against Assange. yeah Free Speech is a right–as long as you don’t challenge power.
https://voicesoflabor.com/2019/03/10/today-labor-history-march-10th-3-2-2/?fbclid=IwAR2N5s_sDlUKXLS4iETle-vuPZC9KZ4z96dZneWdr4flBVSlEA2GBoBjpOI
I know Wobblie considers the reality of human life on the planet earth to be secondary to the stories about Eugene Debs but today just so happens to be the 200,375th anniversary of the human march toward extinction. yeah “right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” is a right–as long as you don’t make your species extinct.
https://youtu.be/rK5Q7kHurkk
FF was funny!!!
FF- You do know that liberals and liberal places have more wealthy individuals than conservative people and places, right?
Conservatives are self-righteous about money and bad with money. They thrive on imagining someone is worse than them re personal finances. That’s their prevailing narrative but to establish it, they must compare middle and upper-class white people to impoverished people of color. It’s literally the only way they can establish their fiscal responsibility. Lord knows their party isn’t doing it. Trump is the GOP model of fiscal success. Just breath that one in and tell me it doesn’t stink of cognitive bias.
Was probably fake FF.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/
FF- One of UM’s top 10 donors was the RNC finance chair and is head f the MI GOP. He’s also a UM regent. Why don’t you ask him about free speech on campus and supposed bias against conservatives? https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/08/27/top-10-donors-university-michigan/564994001/
Maybe I should. Do you think his teachers are giving him bad grades on his critical race theory homework assignments?
Seriously though, like I said before, I do not think UM is a total disaster. They made positive statements that reflect a commitment to trying to avoid de-platforming and dis-invitations. I hope they continue to educate students and faculty about the necessity of honest and open engagement with speakers who are on campus. Discourse, critical thinking and debate are in keeping with the mission of any University.
Did you notice in the video that a young student from EMU who, in a way that was somewhat naive but also honest, stood up and asked a question about whether or not we should be concerned about the prevalence of marxist ideas in our Universities? The reaction from the seemingly well-to-do, and much more chronologically mature crowd, was squinting, shaking of the heads, hands to the forehead, and laughter.
What was so funny? What sort of conditions and context make those more mature and more educated people feel like it was acceptable to laugh at the young student asking that particular question?
Being concerned over the “prevalence of marxist ideas” in academia is right up there with being concerned about the prevalence of darwinian ideas in academia. People blinded by political ideology are unable to recognize truth, whether that be economic or scientific. Being concerned about marxist ideas is really about being concerned about 20th century ideas. The world was so much simpler when we just did as our masters told us regardless of their connection to reality. Academia has successfully purged marxian economic ideas from their economic and business curriculum’s and have imposed pie in the sky obfuscation and adoration of free markets instead of concrete analysis of reality. It is so funny watching people complain about being presented information that conflicts with their world view. Given your political perspectives FF why arn’t you in one of those disiplines that have successfully purged the ideas you don’t want to hear?
I was there and it was funny. It was funny because the risk of an end to market capitalism in the US is zero. It was funny because Marxism, as practiced in Universities today, is by and large a mode of criticism on capitalism, not a political movement. It was funny because it assumed all Socialism are forms of state run industries. The biggest socialist political movement on campus is Democratic Socialism, which is a form of capitalism, just on pace removed from our own. And it is implemented in some form by most European countries. It’s not communism. There is no threat from communism. The Soviet Union’s statism and imperial tendencies eliminated that threat.
It was naive and a bit paranoid, in a very 1980’s way, which is why informed people laugh.
We have many things to worry about in the world today. The expansion of communism is not one of them. Emerging nationalism, statism and xenophobia in nations of all political stripes should concern people on the left and right equally. And addressing those concerns is anyone’s best bet to address whatever threat they feel is emerging from communism.
Trump is exactly the kind of leader who threatens our liberal democracy. Not some Marxist academics.
You say nothing, FF, when HW gets all jacked up about the idea of martial law and mass arrests. Spare me your amplified, politically convenient concern re socialism and Marxism.
PS there was NO way to determine the income of those who scoffed at the student’s alt right paranoia v the student himself. Most of the people there were older. May had broad experience with scholarship at UM and the student’s fears are the opposite of their lived reality. As Wobblie pointed up, there is very little platform for truly leftist ideas at UM anymore outside if LSA. Liberal thinking dominates most scholarship today. But liberalism is not Marxism. Not even close.
You applied that class assessment because it was politically convenient. Should I now call you classist and accuse you of bigotry?
Speaking of responses that feel very 1980’s I think the laughter was misplaced by about 40 years…..I am almost 100% positive that the EMU students remarks were not at all about fears that we are about to bring capitalism to an end. Not at all. His question was vague and general but given the conversation it should be pretty obvious that the question regarding marxism was directed toward the dangers of a transformed marxism being used as the logical framework for identity politics.
Yikes. That was some out of touch laughter, imo, Jean.
I was there and seated near him. He seemed naive and under-informed– Or perhaps over-informed by alt-right media– which is fear-based as you know.
But the idea that ‘identity politics’ presents any threat to capitalism or free discourse is also funny as hell. It’s a manifestation of them.
I am glad you are still laughing. I guess when my jokes fail to make you laugh, you can always laugh at me, for things you think I said but I never said. Maybe you are most easily amused by your own mis-apprehensions? Sounds like guaranteed fun!
I am not saying identity politics poses a threat to capitalism. I am also not making an argument against or for capitalism; or against or for communism.
I am saying: Practicing identity politics, in a very self-unaware, way is a disaster for any hopes we might have of living well together, as members of our groups, but it also is a disaster for us living well together within our groups as unique expressions of our own individuality. A degradation of discourse is one of the dark aspects of the practice of identity politics today.
I am also saying that the identity politics we see more and more today is based on the logic of Marxism that is the reliance on group struggles of oppressor/ oppressed classes against one another to explain our world and history as a struggle over power. I don’t think it is necessary to identify the source of the logic underneath identity politics in order see how destructive IP is, however. My mentioning the term marxist is not my way of trying to associate IP with a “boogeyman”. IP is dangerous, imo, regardless of what you think about economic experiments with Marxism….
Something like 20% of professors in the humanities are self-identifying as Marxists. What percentage of them are really trying to bring down capitalism? Not many. They like the logical framework of Marxism provides.
You just got to love that 1st. Amendment with all those beautiful rights that are inalienable to us, its just that some get to go to jail when exercising them,
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article227127619.html?fbclid=IwAR124IgkGx1eILmWvw36fstR9pdqbro68EBWDZ3ITIGX9uhg4XNomjJ8K-k
I’ve got to find a way to immigrate to Iceland, at least it one same place left on the planet.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/laughingindisbelief/2019/03/iceland-declares-all-religions-are-weapons-of-mass-destruction/?fbclid=IwAR0IvTq1ilLRS3ARZL-XguwVnHpKJGpjqyjFkccRxNfny-Onk1bzWMC2uy8
same=sane
What you call ‘identity politics’ in seeking greater equity of opportunity is not more divisive. Every movement for social justice has created greater harmony. Has gay marriage legalization made things more or less divisive? Voting rights? Civil rights? Was our military better when troops were segregated? When women and gays were excluded? Did Act-Up prevent the discovery of treatment for AIDS and HIV or cause any harm whatsoever?
These are not separatist movements. And they are legitimate free speech expression. You should ask yourself what you are protecting when you respond with fear about ‘identity politics.’ It’s logically inconsistent to support free speech protections and fear the use of those protections by targeted groups seeking to improve their standing.
I’m guessing the identity in identity politics refers to identity different than my own.
Jean,
I’m sure you know but prior to the use of identity politics as an organizing and solidarity building tool amongst oppressed classes it was used by white racists to get what they wanted without regard to the truth or morality. IP has a dark history. But that is not to say that it did not make perfect sense that identity politics would have been used in a positive and NECESSARY way in the securing of civil rights that were deprived to one group or another merely based upon the fact that someone belonged to the “wrong” race, gender, sexual orientation and so….
There obviously is a sunny and NECESSARY side of identity politics. Identity politics does not just work as a good organizing tool it is a necessary organizing tool insofar as it is directing itself at an actual injustice that is incurred based upon one’s belonging to a group that is systematically oppressed because of group membership. As you rightly point out we need identity politics to fight for equal application of laws/ policies that are unjust toward the individuals that make up these groups. Voting rights regardless of gender or race are good rights. Rights to enter a vocation regardless of gender or sexual orientation are good rights. Right to marry the person you love regardless of sexual orientation is a good right. You are right when you say separatism is not the goal of those movements rather securing rights for the individuals that were already being discriminated against (ie. separated by identity by their oppressors) is the goal and it is/ was a worthy goal following a logical process.
There is a dark side to Identity politics that I have been trying to talk about. Let me pause because I am running out time at the moment. I think this is a good time to pause anyway. Let me ask: Do you think we are on the same page so far?
FF— I have no idea what you mean by identity politics. I see no difference in the fundamental positions of feminists and abtiracosts now than 50 years ago. The language has changed a bit with fashion but in essence these movements are multifaceted and the same. And they refer regularly to those who came before them.
They are just more popular now. Aka more successful.
You’re on the wrong side of history, FF.
Even if your side prevails; you will still be on the wrong side of history.
I see very little negative in social justice movements. Some people are annoying and some are dumb and uninformed within those movements. Vulnerable to manipulation. But that’s true among any group of people. Social justice movements make people feel very uncomfortable. They threaten to disrupt the status quo. And people hate chanfe. Resistance to change is human. That doesn’t make it right or wide.
All of the social justice movements you call ‘sunny’ were hated and feared within much of majority culture at the time. MLK was loathed. No one thought he was sunny. I can’t think of any movement for social change that seemed all good and went down easy at the time.
That’s not how change works. You’ve bought a load of bs FF.
Sorry for typos. Can’t write well on phone. Can’t even see what I write.
Remember when they didn’t make big budget movies with female leads or populated with mostly people of color or people over 40? Remember how they said they weren’t ‘commercial’ enough? Remember those olden times? I wonder what the real reason was?
I wonder if confronted with the real reason, studio heads/agents/producers would have balked? Would they have taken personal offense? Probably. You don’t have to support inequity to soak up its messages and perpetuate them.
Jean,
I think “sunny” was a poor word choice. Like you said, fighting for those civil rights was not a walk in the park, obviously. And it made a lot of people angry and uncomfortable, obviously…I did not mean to suggest otherwise. When I used the term “sunny” I was just trying to show that from a certain point of view, within certain applications, identity politics are not bad, they are a normal, and a necessary reaction a class of people, will have when they are oppressed and fighting to secure the rights that have been deprived to them. I am pretty sure I am making very uncontroversial claims.
I wanted to push pause because I am short on time and before I move on to the next thing I was going to say I wanted to know: Are we on the same page? Is there anything you disagree with that I have said in my last 2 comments besides my mischaracterization of the listed civil rights movements as “sunny”? Does that clear up the “sunny” issue?
They are always ok, even when we aren’t yet comfortable with them. History teaches us most of us are wrong about civil rights and equity when they hold advantages positions in a society.
I don’t think we have reached agreement.
I still have zero understanding of your objection to ‘identity politics’ except that it causes discomfort to those with the most cultural status. When did movements for equity ever avoid that?
‘We’ not ‘they’ … hold advantages positions…
Jean you asked me about specific things like gay marriage rights, female voting rights, rights to be gay or female in the military…I answered those questions in the following statement. (I edited out “sunny” because you were right about it being a poor word choice.)
“There obviously is a [….] NECESSARY side of identity politics. Identity politics does not just work as a good organizing tool it is a necessary organizing tool insofar as it is directing itself at an actual injustice that is incurred based upon one’s belonging to a group that is systematically oppressed because of group membership. As you rightly point out we need identity politics to fight for equal application of laws/ policies that are unjust toward the individuals that make up these groups. Voting rights regardless of gender or race are good rights. Rights to enter a vocation regardless of gender or sexual orientation are good rights. Rights to marry the person you love regardless of sexual orientation is a good right. You are right when you say separatism is not the goal of those movements rather securing rights for the individuals that were already being discriminated against (ie. separated by identity by their oppressors) is the goal and it is/ was a worthy goal following a logical process.”
I will add now that it does not matter if people were uncomfortable when there was a struggle for those rights. Who the fuck cares about the comfort level of those people that wanted to continue to discriminate? Whether or not people were uncomfortable is beside the point. The point was we needed to change laws that discriminated against people of the “wrong” gender, sexual orientation or race. Are we on the same page as far as stage 1 of looking at identity politics? Is there something you disagree with that I just now said?
(I am trying to find agreement first so we can look at different ways identity politics are used.)
Yes, but for the use of ‘people that *wanted* to continue to discriminate.’ It’s not just active bigots that are made uncomfortable by movements for change. Many people who did not care about the issues were uncomfortable with the modes of activism and language of movements for change. Even many who supported the overall objective would condemn the movements. But they worked. They just made MOST people uncomfortable at the time.
And they could not have worked alone. They needed people on the inside who supported those same objectives. Outside pressure helps that inside push the levers of change.
I will not have time to engage you much today FF. But I’m interested in where you take this. I find your tone insufferably condescending. As per usual. But I’ll suck it up to see where this goes.
Can we just refer to FF as Dan? He sounds like a Dan to me.
https://hornet.com/stories/act-up-history/?fbclid=IwAR38hHv4w8NS-7eSyq7wYRuk7kDEbsqcJA3wgF5D9CLO_5fKL9ZfkflSpCI
So Trump fake threatens to remove critical health care funding in a political document called the Presidential Budget.
Then Dems amplify that fake threat to people who depend on that funding for survival in order to raise money and to inspire allegiance.
And we are supposed to think that shows empathy? And real concern for the people?
It’s more liberal flag waving instead of meaningful action.
We have enough to worry about. Politicians are assholes and political parties are corrupt and we need to ask more of them.
Third parties are no answer; they run on outrage/bliss and disinformation as well.
We need to arm ourselves and not fall for this crap. If we don’t fall for it the inflammatory tactic will be rendered useless.
Don’t forget that St. Obama was more then willing to cut social security massively for political gain and it was the evil Boehner who saved us from those cuts.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html
Jean, Trump didn’t fake threaten anything. It’s doubtful he even read through the budget before it was announced. He doesn’t give a shit about the details. This budget came from Mick Mulvaney and others in the administration. This isn’t a game of three-dimensional chess. This is what they want.
What do we need to do to convince you to run, Jean?