From Victims to Victimizers: The Left’s Long Journey
drummerboy said:
terp,
On what basis do you believe that rights are something other than what a society, through it's government, decides to be rights?
Rights are what we say they are. Nothing more. Nothing less. We define them. The only thing we can hope for is that "we" has a sense of what rights should be so they benefit us.
We form the government. The government is not supposed to be in charge of us. We own our labor and the government takes it from us in taxes. It is not true that our labor belongs to the government and they let us keep some. We have the right to express ourselves because we are individuals. The government does not have the right to take it from us. We have the right to defend ourselves. The government should not give us permission to defend ourselves.
What your are saying is that the government owns us. If the government owns us, it owns our lives. It can decide winners & losers. It can decide who lives and who dies. You can defend some really really awful acts if this is how you see the world.
Thinking of the world this way is a big problem. I beg everyone here to not teach your children this.
Yeah you pegged me, inarticulate and angry and destined to fail due to a bad attitude. I'm just not bred to please. Alas we all have our burdens to bear.
terp said:
Cool. I just read through the thread. You seem very angry. Part of this anger may be due to the fact that you are incapable of articulating the problem.
Furthermore, you don't seem to offer any solutions. Only complaints. My experience is that attitude usually gets you nowhere.
I can't even describe the loops you go through to write what you do.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question. You didn't give me the "basis" for your beliefs. You just restated them.
It's beyond obvious that rights are given to us by society, and as such can be as wide or restrictive as we choose. (i.e. the ridiculous "right" to own a gun.) That's kind of the fundamental conflict of politics, isn't it? Arguing about what exactly should be a right.
You're too facile with the word "own" so I'm not even going to bother with that part of your post.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp,
On what basis do you believe that rights are something other than what a society, through it's government, decides to be rights?
Rights are what we say they are. Nothing more. Nothing less. We define them. The only thing we can hope for is that "we" has a sense of what rights should be so they benefit us.
We form the government. The government is not supposed to be in charge of us. We own our labor and the government takes it from us in taxes. It is not true that our labor belongs to the government and they let us keep some. We have the right to express ourselves because we are individuals. The government does not have the right to take it from us. We have the right to defend ourselves. The government should not give us permission to defend ourselves.
What your are saying is that the government owns us. If the government owns us, it owns our lives. It can decide winners & losers. It can decide who lives and who dies. You can defend some really really awful acts if this is how you see the world.
Thinking of the world this way is a big problem. I beg everyone here to not teach your children this.
drummerboy said:
It's beyond obvious that rights are given to us by society, and as such can be as wide or restrictive as we choose. (i.e. the ridiculous "right" to own a gun.) That's kind of the fundamental conflict of politics, isn't it? Arguing about what exactly should be a right.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp,
On what basis do you believe that rights are something other than what a society, through it's government, decides to be rights?
Rights are what we say they are. Nothing more. Nothing less. We define them. The only thing we can hope for is that "we" has a sense of what rights should be so they benefit us.
We form the government. The government is not supposed to be in charge of us. We own our labor and the government takes it from us in taxes. It is not true that our labor belongs to the government and they let us keep some. We have the right to express ourselves because we are individuals. The government does not have the right to take it from us. We have the right to defend ourselves. The government should not give us permission to defend ourselves.
What your are saying is that the government owns us. If the government owns us, it owns our lives. It can decide winners & losers. It can decide who lives and who dies. You can defend some really really awful acts if this is how you see the world.
The word "supposed" in Terp's second sentence is the crux of the issue. His view is theoretical, the way things are "supposed" to be. DB is stating how things actually are.
Idealism and Realism. You are both correct.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
drummerboy said:
Anyway, you didn't answer my question. You didn't give me the "basis" for your beliefs. You just restated them.
"Basis"? A guy who, dare I say, was a lot smarter than Terp, said they are "self-evident".
Wonder if for all his learning if Tommy J. ever heard the word "Chutzpah"
As usually happens, this discussion has drifted away from the original premise which was that in order to start winning elections, liberals need to stop "victimizing" conservatives, especially conservative Christians. But I don't think I've seen an answer to my earlier question. Given the study that Dave Schmidt cited that concludes there is no widespread suppression of free speech at colleges, and certainly no "crisis," and given the pervasiveness of conservative and Christian ideologies in this country, exactly how are conservatives and Christians oppressed "victims?" As I wrote earlier, conservatives control most of the levers of government now from the state houses up to the federal government. They have a cable news channel, and a multitude of websites. How exactly are they being "victimized," and prevented from expressing their opinions? From where I sit, their ideas and opinions are dominant in our country right now.
If anyone has been "victimized" it's liberals who have all been gerrymandered into a minority of congressional districts so their voices can be ignored in Washington. That's a much, much bigger deal than giving undergrads trigger warnings or safe spaces (which ironically enough, conservative students are now requesting because liberals are being mean to them for voting for Trump), or people demanding states stop flying the Confederate flag.
ml1 said:
As usually happens, this discussion has drifted away from the original premise which was that in order to start winning elections, liberals need to stop "victimizing" conservatives, especially conservative Christians. But I don't think I've seen an answer to my earlier question. Given the study that Dave Schmidt cited that concludes there is no widespread suppression of free speech at colleges, and certainly no "crisis," and given the pervasiveness of conservative and Christian ideologies in this country, exactly how are conservatives and Christians oppressed "victims?" As I wrote earlier, conservatives control most of the levers of government now from the state houses up to the federal government. They have a cable news channel, and a multitude of websites. How exactly are they being "victimized," and prevented from expressing their opinions? From where I sit, their ideas and opinions are dominant in our country right now.
If anyone has been "victimized" it's liberals who have all been gerrymandered into a minority of congressional districts so their voices can be ignored in Washington. That's a much, much bigger deal than giving undergrads trigger warnings or safe spaces (which ironically enough, conservative students are now requesting because liberals are being mean to them for voting for Trump), or people demanding states stop flying the Confederate flag.
Please don't oppress all of the white supremacists.
First, apologies for my delay in responding but I was bogged down with Christmas and professional obligations.
Flimbro it appears that your comments on the various rights mentioned above are based on Critical Race Theory ("CRT"). Although, your comments do not mention CRT, your method of analysis and emphasis on personal narratives appear to be consistent with CRT. Please let me know whether you are using a CRT analysis. I will be better able to respond to your comments if I can understand whether the context is CRT, or not
flimbro said:
I just noticed that you referred to those items as "rights" and not rights. If you're uncomfortable with that term feel free too describe them any way you like- characteristics, tenets etc. I am after all trying to answer your question by suggesting a sure fire way for you to recognize 'equality'.
Bret Weinstein,a biology professor at The Evergreen State College (hereinafter "Evergreen") in Olympia, WA, has, in the past few weeks, become a focus for far-leftist protesters claiming one of their own. Weinstein, who has called himself "deeply progressive," would not generally be the target of liberal students’ ire. But in March, he publicly questioned the value of an Evergreen event where white students were encouraged to leave the Evergreen campus, spurring protesters to label him a bigot and racist. See attached email. Student mobs have called for his resignation and a safety threat forced him to teach his class in a public park.
It is quite incredible what has happened Evergreen. Professor Weinstein has been harassed and intimidated because he used his free speech rights to point out issues arising from an attempt to temporarily drive all whites off the Evergreen campus for the "Day of Absence." It appears the Prof. Weinstein is the hero in this Evergreen situtation.
See (source for copy of Weinstein email): http://www.thenewstribune.com/...
(source for video of harassment and intimidation of Prof. Weinstein) https://www.campusreform.org/?...
RealityForAll said:
Bret Weinstein,a biology professor at The Evergreen State College (hereinafter "Evergreen") in Olympia, WA, has, in the past few weeks, become a focus for far-leftist protesters claiming one of their own.
I suspected that you were a lawyer. Now I know it for sure. (hereinafter ""for sure").
LOST said:
RealityForAll said:
Bret Weinstein,a biology professor at The Evergreen State College (hereinafter "Evergreen") in Olympia, WA, has, in the past few weeks, become a focus for far-leftist protesters claiming one of their own.
I suspected that you were a lawyer. Now I know it for sure. (hereinafter ""for sure").
"Hereinafter" is a very useful and well-defined word. Which I like to use when creating defined terms for persons or things. However, some would describe "hereinafter" as legalese.
Trailer for new movie "No Safe Spaces" from Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager:
This film claims to expose the most dangerous place in America for ideas and debate: The college campus.
Movie is supposed to be released in Spring 2018.
Latest news from Evergreen State College in Olympia WA:
Leftist student group at Evergreen begins ‘community policing’ university with baseball bats
Scary group there. Love the opening sentences from The Blaze. Perhaps the author should re-enroll in school.
"Leftist students at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, have formed a vigilante group whose purpose is to “community police” the campus, according to College Fix.
"While the specific reason for the formation of the bat-wielding group is not known, speculation is that the group was formed in response to the campus closing on Monday due to an 'external threat.'"
@dave23, sounds like some types of vigilanteism are OK.
dave23 said:
Scary group there. Love the opening sentences from The Blaze. Perhaps the author should re-enroll in school.
"Leftist students at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, have formed a vigilante group whose purpose is to “community police” the campus, according to College Fix.
"While the specific reason for the formation of the bat-wielding group is not known, speculation is that the group was formed in response to the campus closing on Monday due to an 'external threat.'"
In the wake of the Evergreen State College incidents involving suppression of free speech, a bill has been introduced by the WA legislature to address this issue. See http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/...
The bill sounds like a good starting point to address this issue. I have also reprinted the bill below.
==============================================================================
H-2815.1
HOUSE BILL 2223
| State of Washington | 65th Legislature | 2017 2nd Special Session |
By Representatives J. Walsh, Graves, Haler, Manweller, Pike, Van Werven, Griffey, Irwin, Volz, Buys, Harris, and Kraft
Read first time 06/12/17. Referred to Committee on Higher Education.
AN ACT Relating to protecting the freedom of speech in institutions of higher education; and adding a new chapter to Title 28B RCW.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The legislature finds and declares that public institutions of higher education are not exempt from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, section 5, of the Washington state Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It is the intent of the legislature that Washington's public institutions of higher education embrace a commitment to the freedom of speech and expression for all students and all faculty.
(2) The legislature further intends that its public institutions of higher education, including faculty at the institutions, may not require students or other faculty to adopt or indicate an adherence to the beliefs or orthodoxies on any particular political, philosophical, religious, social, or other such subject. However, institutions of higher education may require students and faculty to conform their conduct to the requirements of law and policy.
(3) It is further the intent of the legislature that public institutions of higher education not stifle freedom of speech and expression by implementing vague or overbroad speech codes, establishing free speech zones, imposing unconstitutional prior restraints on speech, or disinviting speakers based on the anticipated reaction or opposition of others to the content of speech.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Constitutional time, place, and manner restrictions" means restrictions on the time, place, and manner of free speech that do not violate the federal or state constitutions, are reasonable, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral, are narrowly tailored to satisfy a significant institutional interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for the communication of the information or message to its intended audience.
(2) "Faculty" or "faculty member" means any person, whether or not the person is compensated by a public institution of higher education, and regardless of political affiliation, who is tasked with providing scholarship, academic research, or teaching. "Faculty" includes tenured and nontenured professors, adjunct professors, visiting professors, lecturers, graduate student instructors, and those in comparable positions, however titled. "Faculty" does not include persons whose primary responsibilities are administrative or managerial.
(3) "Free speech" means speech, expression, or assemblies, verbal or written, protected by the federal or state constitutions, including, but not limited to, all forms of peaceful assembly, protests, demonstrations, rallies, vigils, marches, public speaking, distribution of printed materials, carrying signs, displays, or circulating petitions. "Free speech" does not include the promotion, sale, or distribution of any product or service.
(4) "Institution of higher education" or "institution" has the definition in RCW 28B.10.016.
(5) "Student" means:
(a) An individual currently enrolled in a course of study at an institution of higher education; and
(b) An organization that comprises entirely individuals currently enrolled in a course of study at an institution of higher education and the organization is registered as a student organization with the institution pursuant to institutional rules.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) The governing boards of every institution of higher education shall each adopt a policy that affirms the following principles of free speech, which are the public policy of this state:
(a) Students have a fundamental constitutional right to free speech;
(b) An institution of higher education must be committed to giving students the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, learn, and discuss any issue, subject to section 6 of this act;
(c) An institution of higher education must be committed to maintaining its campus as a marketplace of ideas for all students and all faculty in which the free exchange of ideas is not suppressed because some or most members of the institution's community think those ideas are offensive, unwise, immoral, indecent, disagreeable, conservative, liberal, traditional, radical, or emotionally disturbing;
(d) Students and faculty members must be allowed to make judgments about ideas for themselves and to act on those judgments by openly and vigorously debating the ideas they either agree to and/or oppose, rather than by seeking to suppress free speech;
(e) It is not the proper role of an institution of higher education to attempt to shield individuals from free speech, including ideas and opinions they find offensive, unwise, immoral, indecent, disagreeable, conservative, liberal, traditional, radical, or emotionally disturbing;
(f) Although an institution of higher education should greatly value civility and mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect must not be used by an institution of higher education as a justification for closing off the discussion of ideas, however offensive, unwise, immoral, indecent, disagreeable, conservative, liberal, traditional, radical, or emotionally disturbing those ideas may be to some students or faculty;
(g) All students and all faculty must be free to state their own views about and contest the views expressed on campus and to state their own views about and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus. Students and faculty may not substantially obstruct or otherwise substantially interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. Therefore, an institution of higher education has a responsibility to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation and protect that freedom;
(h) An institution of higher education must be committed to providing an atmosphere that is most conducive to speculation, experimentation, and creation by all students and all faculty, who shall always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate, and to gain new understanding;
(i) The primary responsibility of faculty is to engage an honest, courageous, and persistent effort to search out and communicate the truth that lies in the areas of their competencies;
(j) Although faculty are free in the classroom to discuss subjects within areas of their competencies, faculty shall be cautious in expressing personal views in the classroom and shall be careful not to introduce controversial matters that have no relationship to the subject taught, especially regarding matters they have no special competence or training in and in which, therefore, faculty's views cannot claim the authority accorded other statements they make that are within their areas of competence. However, no faculty should face adverse employment action for classroom speech, unless it is not reasonably germane to the subject matter of the class as broadly construed and comprises a substantial portion of classroom instruction;
(k) An institution of higher education must maintain the generally accessible, open, outdoor areas of its campus as traditional public forums for free speech by students;
(l) An institution of higher education must not restrict students' free speech only to particular areas of the campus, sometimes known as "free speech zones";
(m) An institution of higher education must not deny student activity fee funding to a student organization based on the viewpoints that the student organization advocates;
(n) An institution of higher education must not establish permitting requirements that prohibit spontaneous outdoor assemblies or outdoor distribution of literature. However, an institution of higher education may maintain a policy that grants members of the institution's community the right to reserve certain outdoor spaces in advance;
(o) An institution of higher education must not charge students security fees based on the content of their speech, the content of the speech of guest speakers invited by students, or the anticipated reaction or opposition to speech;
(p) An institution of higher education must allow all students and all faculty to invite guest speakers to campus to engage in free speech regardless of the views of the guest speakers; and
(q) An institution of higher education must not disinvite a speaker invited by a student, student organization, or faculty member solely because the speaker's anticipated speech may be considered offensive, unwise, immoral, indecent, disagreeable, conservative, liberal, traditional, radical, or emotionally disturbing by students, faculty, administrators, government officials, or members of the public.
(2) The policy adopted pursuant to this section must be made available to students and faculty annually through one or more of the following methods:
(a) By publication annually in the institution of higher education's student handbook and faculty handbook, whether paper or electronic;
(b) By way of a prominent notice on the institution of higher education's web site other than through the electronic publication of the policy in the student handbook and faculty handbook;
(c) Sent annually to students and employees to their institutionally provided email address; or
(d) Addressed by the institution of higher education in orientation programs for new students and new faculty.
(3) Nothing in this section may be construed to grant students the right to disrupt previously scheduled or reserved activities occurring in a traditional public forum.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. (1) With respect to disciplining students for their speech, expression, or assemblies, each institution of higher education must adopt a policy on "student-on-student harassment" defining the term consistent with and no more expansively than the language contained in subsection (2) of this section.
(2) As used in this section, "student-on-student harassment" means unwelcome conduct directed toward a person that is discriminatory on a basis prohibited by federal, state, or local law, and that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. Nothing in this chapter requires an institution of higher education to fund costs associated with student speech or expression. An institution of higher education shall not impose costs on students or student organizations on the basis of the anticipated reaction or opposition to a person's speech by listeners.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Nothing in this chapter prohibits an institution of higher education from imposing measures that do not violate the federal and state constitutions, such as:
(1) Constitutional time, place, and manner restrictions;
(2) Reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions in nonpublic forums;
(3) Restricting the use of the institution of higher education's property to protect the free speech rights of students and faculty and preserve the use of the property for the advancement of the institution's mission;
(4) Prohibiting or limiting speech, expression, or assemblies that are not protected by the federal or state constitution; and
(5) Content restrictions on speech that are reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical purpose, such as classroom rules enacted by faculty.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. The governing body of each institution of higher education may adopt rules to effectuate the purposes of this chapter.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. Sections 1 through 7 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 28B RCW.
Yeah, their mistake for carrying baseball bats instead of guns. If they'd had guns (and got rid of that one black kid in the front), they'd be lionized by the right-wing press.
tom said:
Yeah, their mistake for carrying baseball bats instead of guns. If they'd had guns (and got rid of that one black kid in the front), they'd be lionized by the right-wing press.
they look pretty menacing
and fwiw, many of the same sponsors of this Washington "free speech" bill also sponsored an anti-BDS bill. Whatever one thinks of BDS, isn't expressing support for it protected speech?
The anti-BDS bill is not about preventing anyone from "expressing support" for it, it is 100% about not having dealing with anyone who actually DOES it. Speech is free, actions are not.
Gilgul said:
The anti-BDS bill is not about preventing anyone from "expressing support" for it, it is 100% about not having dealing with anyone who actually DOES it. Speech is free, actions are not.
if you read the resolution, it does just that.
the reference to baseball bats... one of the group of congressional members and aides huddled in the dugout, watching the shooter,commented that all they had to protect themselves were baseball bats. If only one had been armed...
There are congressmen and women who served on the military and fully trained on gun use who could be depended upon to react on such situations.
That was the case on that ball field in Virginia.
they were protected by an armed security detail. Do you really think the congressmen and women should have had sidearms strapped on while they roamed the outfield or ran the bases? That's absurd.
mtierney said:
the reference to baseball bats... one of the group of congressional members and aides huddled in the dugout, watching the shooter,commented that all they had to protect themselves were baseball bats. If only one had been armed...
There are congressmen and women who served on the military and fully trained on gun use who could be depended upon to react on such situations.
That was the case on that ball field in Virginia.
ml1 said:
Gilgul said:
The anti-BDS bill is not about preventing anyone from "expressing support" for it, it is 100% about not having dealing with anyone who actually DOES it. Speech is free, actions are not.
if you read the resolution, it does just that.
Actually the one cited does not DO anything at all on anything. H-2815.1 does at least have some actual action. So you bringing it up is just an unrelated distraction that only shows once again the selective view the left has on bigotry.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info -
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Free Items
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
Advertisement
Cool. I just read through the thread. You seem very angry. Part of this anger may be due to the fact that you are incapable of articulating the problem.
Furthermore, you don't seem to offer any solutions. Only complaints. My experience is that attitude usually gets you nowhere.