The thugocracy cometh

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We've already dumbed down the First Amendment to the point where it protects nude dancing but no longer protects political advertising in an election cycle.

I fail to see the problem here.

Yeah, you need deprogramming before you see the problem.

Deprogramming. How very 70's. Tres vintage.

For some reason I imagine it involves some sort of weird machine - complete with spinning disks and pyschedelic flashing lights.

Seriously isn't it rich how a person who demonstrated cultish behaviour during the Democratic Primary and now posts any op-ed piece he can find (including a fair few of dubious provenance) to justify his bias has the gall to criticise others for being mindless followers? Not least of course - that those aforementioned mindless followers are the only people he's interested in when he talks about Obama Supporters...

It takes all sorts I guess.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[HAL 9000 96]

Really, is this what it has come to? Some McCain supporters can't think of one issue, not one on which to argue coherently, so they are now relying on whining about 'suppression'? How exactly does the fact that I disagree with this article indicate that I am supressing your right to think whatever you like Metta?

Whining about "suppression" when they didn't get the memo there already is a concerted effort to suppress voting rights done by supporters of the McCain campaign.

[SteveLaura 0]

We've already dumbed down the First Amendment to the point where it protects nude dancing but no longer protects political advertising in an election cycle.

I fail to see the problem here.

Yeah, you need deprogramming before you see the problem.

What the ** are you even talking about? Seriously. And where do you get this stuff? nastyobamarumorsoohbeveryscared.com?

[HAL 9000 96]

Steve... there is a report that just came out that Google is good for the brain. Thinking about it in your way, however, makes me doubt the conclusions.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/14/google.brain/index.html

[metta 0]

I have to say anything that references Soviet era thought control with academia is 4 walls short of a house.

The obvious point - Republican politicians go to college too...

The most liberal of all environments, Academia, teems with “speech codes” that create thought police in ways that Soviet political commissars would find commendable.

The writer was pointing out to what is going on in some campuses here in America. Most notable case is of David Horowitz.

I don't agree with Horowitz but does he have a right to speak his mind without being shouted down is a VERY LEGITIMATE issue..

Here's an example

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If as it says 80-90% of the people in that audience were there protesting Horowitz and his ideas, is it reasonable wonder whether the speech would have gone ahead if only the 10% had bothered to go? Would that have been tantamount to "shutting down" Horowitz' views? What if noone went?

The fact is that extreme people with radical opinions tend to attract equally radical opposition. I can't see how this amounts to some broad trend across universities to shut down "opposing views".

One might wonder the same at all those radio talk shows where the host controls what his guest says and doesn't let them get a word in edgewise.

However, we're talking about academia... but now that I think of it, what was the name of that college professor who did seminars or something on 9/11 being a government conspiracy, or that black speaker who made the comment about a holocaust for white people? If I remember rightly there were calls by folks Bill O'Reilly to have such speakers fired from their jobs.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[metta 0]

We've already dumbed down the First Amendment to the point where it protects nude dancing but no longer protects political advertising in an election cycle.

I fail to see the problem here.

Yeah, you need deprogramming before you see the problem.

Deprogramming. How very 70's. Tres vintage.

How'bout exit counseling?

For some reason I imagine it involves some sort of weird machine - complete with spinning disks and pyschedelic flashing lights.

Seriously isn't it rich how a person who demonstrated cultish behaviour during the Democratic Primary and now posts any op-ed piece he can find (including a fair few of dubious provenance) to justify his bias has the gall to criticise others for being mindless followers? Not least of course - that those aforementioned mindless followers are the only people he's interested in when he talks about Obama Supporters...

It takes all sorts I guess.

Yeah, yeah yeah, I know that you feel more than adequately informed by A.J's Troll Press Agency and its daily hourly updates

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We've already dumbed down the First Amendment to the point where it protects nude dancing but no longer protects political advertising in an election cycle.

I fail to see the problem here.

Yeah, you need deprogramming before you see the problem.

Deprogramming. How very 70's. Tres vintage.

How'bout exit counseling?

For some reason I imagine it involves some sort of weird machine - complete with spinning disks and pyschedelic flashing lights.

Seriously isn't it rich how a person who demonstrated cultish behaviour during the Democratic Primary and now posts any op-ed piece he can find (including a fair few of dubious provenance) to justify his bias has the gall to criticise others for being mindless followers? Not least of course - that those aforementioned mindless followers are the only people he's interested in when he talks about Obama Supporters...

It takes all sorts I guess.

Yeah, yeah yeah, I know that you feel more than adequately informed by A.J's Troll Press Agency and its daily hourly updates

I do? What AJ posts has absolutely nothing to do with me...

I rather suspect that a good many people here get their fill of current affairs and opinion on our own. Crazy as that might sound.

[metta 0]

If as it says 80-90% of the people in that audience were there protesting Horowitz and his ideas, is it reasonable wonder whether the speech would have gone ahead if only the 10% had bothered to go? Would that have been tantamount to "shutting down" Horowitz' views? What if noone went?

The fact is that extreme people with radical opinions tend to attract equally radical opposition. I can't see how this amounts to some broad trend across universities to shut down "opposing views".

One might wonder the same at all those radio talk shows where the host controls what his guest says and doesn't let them get a word in edgewise.

However, we're talking about academia... but now that I think of it, what was the name of that college professor who did seminars or something on 9/11 being a government conspiracy, or that black speaker who made the comment about a holocaust for white people? If I remember rightly there were calls by folks Bill O'Reilly to have such speakers fired from their jobs.

I can't see how this amounts to some broad trend across universities to shut down "opposing views".

happens more commonly than you would think.

That is why I feel it's important to remain vigilant against both extremes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If as it says 80-90% of the people in that audience were there protesting Horowitz and his ideas, is it reasonable wonder whether the speech would have gone ahead if only the 10% had bothered to go? Would that have been tantamount to "shutting down" Horowitz' views? What if noone went?

The fact is that extreme people with radical opinions tend to attract equally radical opposition. I can't see how this amounts to some broad trend across universities to shut down "opposing views".

One might wonder the same at all those radio talk shows where the host controls what his guest says and doesn't let them get a word in edgewise.

However, we're talking about academia... but now that I think of it, what was the name of that college professor who did seminars or something on 9/11 being a government conspiracy, or that black speaker who made the comment about a holocaust for white people? If I remember rightly there were calls by folks Bill O'Reilly to have such speakers fired from their jobs.

I can't see how this amounts to some broad trend across universities to shut down "opposing views".

happens more commonly than you would think.

That is why I feel it's important to remain vigilant against both extremes.

I guess it depends whether its worth going out of your way to defend the free speech of someone like Horowitz who doesn't have anything constructive to say - given that there are plenty of other, less extreme university speakers out there whose politics doesn't fit the norm.

At the end of the day its easier not to get involved and let the extremists duke it out amongst themselves. They deserve each other.

[HAL 9000 96]

If as it says 80-90% of the people in that audience were there protesting Horowitz and his ideas, is it reasonable wonder whether the speech would have gone ahead if only the 10% had bothered to go? Would that have been tantamount to "shutting down" Horowitz' views? What if noone went?

The fact is that extreme people with radical opinions tend to attract equally radical opposition. I can't see how this amounts to some broad trend across universities to shut down "opposing views".

One might wonder the same at all those radio talk shows where the host controls what his guest says and doesn't let them get a word in edgewise.

However, we're talking about academia... but now that I think of it, what was the name of that college professor who did seminars or something on 9/11 being a government conspiracy, or that black speaker who made the comment about a holocaust for white people? If I remember rightly there were calls by folks Bill O'Reilly to have such speakers fired from their jobs.

Yep.

Plus, plenty of professors NOW have lost their jobs and/or their academic flexibility for being in this supposedly majority liberal bandwagon. Cases in point- Normal Finkelstein, Tariq Ali, John Mearsheimer, Tony Judt, et al. And this had hardly anything to do with right-wing nutjobs like O'Reilly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I certainly do not oppose the right to freedom of speech - but I really don't see the value in speaking up against one group of extremists in favor of the rights of another group of extremists.

[HAL 9000 96]

Seems to be a problem for some to digest.

[Peikko 1,575]

How exactly does the antics of students (which are what they are, whether one approves or not) relate to the tactics of Barack Obama's campaign though?

Once he made reference to 'getting in the faces' (I expect it's only once, we had a thread like this before, but it is possible that he has said it more than once I guess) of anyone who will listen and explain the reality of the issues that he is proposing. Surely the inference of that was clear to all but the extreme right wing; make sure the issues count.

His term of phrase may have been somewhat crude, I don't think anyone would disagree, but to suggest that what he implied was to 'silence' the opposition is to take one too many of those happy pills in my opinion.

[HAL 9000 96]

How exactly does the antics of students (which are what they are, whether one approves or not) relate to the tactics of Barack Obama's campaign though?

Once he made reference to 'getting in the faces' (I expect it's only once, we had a thread like this before, but it is possible that he has said it more than once I guess) of anyone who will listen and explain the reality of the issues that he is proposing. Surely the inference of that was clear to all but the extreme right wing; make sure the issues count.

His term of phrase may have been somewhat crude, I don't think anyone would disagree, but to suggest that what he implied was to 'silence' the opposition is to take one too many of those happy pills in my opinion.

Its an ironic taste of their own medicine. You see, Cleo, it is no secret that some of the more vocal right wingers have a particular fancy to silencing everything that is in disagreement with their narrow world perspective. Why? Who knows.