Politics: J'accuse!

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by bilmore
I am concerned about the impact of Hitler on Jews. Could we speak of his history so that I can understand what was driving him?

v.

How can you defend the murderous and racist Hitler?

Am I bigoted because I would use the second phrase? Intolerant of Hitler? It still comes down to personal context in your example. Obviously, no one would call me bigoted for ripping into Adolph. No one seems to call the person ripping into the uncommon Mormon practice of the one old fart taking seven teenage wives "intolerant". That's because the bulk of the people are viewing it as indefensible. I view the role of women in several religions similarly, but expressions of that are "intolerant"? No way. You seem to be succumbing to the myth that it's not PC if it upholds the pop morality. I can't accept the view that "they beat their wives, but it's okay, because their culture is different" is a morally supportable thesis, but that's what your "tolerance" seems to demand.

As usual, you are looking at the shallow end of the analysis.

It is all about context and that is the point.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Re: academics, that area has truly passed into the realm of the suppression of speech, not merely PC.

Well, yes, I guess by PC I mean the cynical term we used for "the attitudes of those using various methods of power to suppres speech by those in power" and "not PC" to mean those who bristled at the existence of this dynamic.

Within the US, where does such entrenched* suppression of viewpoints take place in a way remotely comparable to the academy?

* Tenure is entrenching; being subject to popular vote every few years is not. Nor is being subject to finger movements across the radio dial.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
Re: academics, that area has truly passed into the realm of the suppression of speech, not merely PC. The suppression occurs, as stated earlier, because all the good seats got taken by one side, and students of a different persuasion than the chairs are chilled in the expression of their beliefs in the presence of people who have shown an ability and a willingness to punish holders of "non-acceptable", unconforming thought.

Combine PC with power relationships, and you get free speech issues.

But college is where you learn progressive and open-minded thought. Idealistic (and many times unrealistic) ways to change the world. Those ideas are necessary b/c there's a chance they could lead to something realistic. You probably used to understand this. Now you are set in your beliefs that something completely different cannot possibly be the best way.

We learn about old, scared white-man thought in every day life.

Traditional thought SHOULD be somewhat chilled in college. Most people were raised with traditional thought and need exposure to the other side. It's not the other way around. Most people weren't raised in Berkely.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
But college is where you learn progressive and open-minded thought. Idealistic (and many times unrealistic) ways to change the world. You probably used to understand this.

We learn about old, scared white-man thought in every day life.

I can guarantee you that my thought process is more open-minded and progressive than yours.

(ETA: well, I shouldn't say "guarantee", because I only know "you" through your posts, and you may well be very different from your posting persona. But, if you truly do resemble the person you post as, then I'll stick with "guarantee".)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

We learn about old, scared white-man thought in every day life.

I'm heartened to know that we subsidize the academy for the principle purpose of ensuring that ideas that cannot gain traction in the real world have a place where they can be expressed and thought important and meaningful.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can guarantee you that my thought process is more open-minded and progressive than yours.

(ETA: well, I shouldn't say "guarantee", because I only know "you" through your posts, and you may well be very different from your posting persona. But, if you truly do resemble the person you post as, then I'll stick with "guarantee".)

You know that last sentence was just a light-hearted kidney punch.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm heartened to know that we subsidize the academy for the principle purpose of ensuring that ideas that cannot gain traction in the real world have a place where they can be expressed and thought important and meaningful.

I'm thinking "tooth fairy".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
You know that last sentence was just a light-hearted kidney punch.

I know, but it disturbs me that, underneath, you really do believe what you posted. (Well, what you posted before you went back and edited it.)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
I know, but it disturbs me that, underneath, you really do believe what you posted.

That most people are raised with traditional, conservative values? Aren't they?

Or that most people were not raised in Berkely?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The Seattle times published a photograph of rows and rows of coffins draped in American flags on Sunday. As far as I know, it's the first such photograph to make it into a major newspaper. I think it's quite a sobering photo, and I can understand why the Bush Administration wasn't too keen on these types of photographs hitting the newspapers on a regular basis. Accompanying story here.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2001906044.jpg (photo)

And the contractor fired the employee who took the photograph: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...8492476.htm?1c

Edited to substitute a non-registration link to same story.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Most people weren't raised in Berkely.

I think AG was.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?


Traditional thought SHOULD be somewhat chilled in college. Most people were raised with traditional thought and need exposure to the other side. It's not the other way around. Most people weren't raised in Berkely.

Since you edited after I responded . . .

No, speech should not be chilled and thought should be modified through persuasion. You're operating under the North Korea model of "wrong thoughts should be punished," which, perhaps not coincidentally, is the model often followed in academe.

The fundamental flaw in the approach of PCness is not the viewpoint or conclusion it ultimately reaches, it's the unwillingness to engage in debate on certain matters because the issue is "closed." That is antipodal to education. If your position is so clearly correct then you should have no fear of challenge from "traditional" thought because it is so easily vanquished and corrected. Yet that is precisely the approach, and if fundamentally undermines the supposed correctness of the liberal viewpoint (in the case of education). If only the strongest survive in the marketplace of ideas, why the need to stifle, rather than to listen, discuss, and explain why the viewpoint is wrong? That's just not what happens. Debate is pretermitted even before the "listen" stage of that approach.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Let me put it to you this way:

Liberals regularly used debate-stiffling tactics, including accusations of racism as well as, nearly as damningly, accusations of utter insensitivity to fellow students, on the few* occasions on which someone offered an explanation for racial disparities other than inherent systemic bias.

*The occasions were few because free thinkers learned to take their thoughts to the conservative weekly or the Federalist Society, once in law school, rather than become complete social pariahs.

Where I went to school, there were some on the left who would do such things, and there were many who were opposed to those tactics. There are also people who cannot discuss institutional racism without turning it into a morality play about an individual's subjective intent. One might call this insensitive, but a better way to put it is that they don't do a good job of hearing what's being said. Of course, sometimes it's not said all that well, either.

And don't even get me started on the Federalist Society. I'm glad that you have experienced it as a tolerant and welcoming bunch of free thinkers.

As for corporate/government money, are you saying that either is being used to pay people not to write, or simply that there's an inherent benefit to writing and thinking with viewpoints that may attract sponsorship? I would certainly be troubled by the former, but while I'm sure that has, on occasion, happened, I am doubtful that the strategy is capable of much success, as there are numerous means by which ultimately to make the speech that is ostensibly being stiffled.

I'm saying that there are schools which take corporate and/or government money, and then have incentives to steer research towards certain topics and results, and away from others. This also may affect decisions about who gets hired or tenure. For a possible example of this, check out this story.*

* I know nothing about the merits of this guy's case other than what's in this story, and wouldn't form a conclusion about it based on what I know.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And the contractor fired the employee who took the photograph: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/4737019.html

Good.

1991 policy.

Very fun to see the pic of the boxes as you wait for your nephew to come home in one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by leagleaze
As usual, you are looking at the shallow end of the analysis.

Bilmore mentioned Hitler first, and thus he loses.