Berkeley the publically funded University also canceled Ann Coulter's speech, I just found out, over security concerns. To me the free speech issue has essentially been proven, using rioters as a pretext to shut down free speech from the right was a pattern all last year with milo as we've spoken of previously. How many examples do we need, cause they keep on coming.
As professors, who are overwhelmingly liberal, foster such a politically biased and charged enviornment that those who contradict their narratives can't even speak, and then use that hostile climate as a pretext for repeat bans on basically all right wingers, its astounding to me that we even have to discuss whether or not this is a problem.
Milo was the one example. And Coutler and Milo and right wingers encourage violence. Trump was telling people to rough up people he didn't like during his rallies. And right wingers are all about guns and being tough whatever that means (hiding behind a gun?) You reap what you sow.
Liberal professors outnumber right wingers. Why is that? Pure speculation but I think there's a number of reasons.
Maybe it's because many right wingers don't believe in science they have their own "Beliefs" such as vaccinations cause autism and other unproven or flatly disproven theories.
They are often capitalistic too, the pursuit of money and power is more important that the pursuit of knowledge. Being a professor usually doesn't pay a whole hell of a lot - often because right wing politicians seem to be always trying to cut education budgets. A desire to be highly paid discourages the conversation from their pursuit.
Right wingers often lack of patience and curiosity. They have all the answers already, why bother to explore and spend time thinking? Could you imagine sexual harrasers like Bill O'Reilly, Trump, or Roger Allies teaching a class on anything? Hell no, they don't have the patience or empathy to work with students and their big egos don't tolerate questions as we've seen.
My hot take is that they could get in - but their nutty ideas, a lack of scientific thinking, a lack of empathy and patience doesn't particularly attract them to this profession.
I have to agree here. I have listened to conservative media rip on colleges and higher education for, literally, decades. Why is it, exactly, that they are now so keen on getting speaking engagements at places they have, historically, had nothing but mockery and derision for??
Furthermore, this continues to be an issue, as far as society goes, that seems to be strictly confined to disparate college campuses. On the one hand, I find the whole issue ridiculous and next to meaningless. On the other hand, I almost just want to hand over the keys to every college in the country to these people to have their speeches, because once you take colleges out of the equation, this entire "PC culture" construction doesn't even exist.
I would also like to point out, as someone who spent at least a couple years at one, that college is the place where you (at least initially) probably act more irresponsible than at any other time in your life. If we judged the entirety of this country based on their actions when they were college freshman or sophomores, no one would be come out looking clean. Are alot of these protesters acting like dipshits?? You bet. Have I also seen Penn State students riot and almost tear down their campus because they were pissed their football coach got fired for harboring a serial pedophile?? Bet your ass I have. Using the behavior of college students to extrapolate broader trends in society isn't going to get you anywhere.
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." "I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." ... Ann Coulter said every one of those things.
Not to hop on the bandwagon, but cheering for the deaths of your political enemies is despicable and un-American.
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." "I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." ... Ann Coulter said every one of those things.
Not to hop on the bandwagon, but cheering for the deaths of your political enemies is despicable and un-American.
Now, is Ann Coulter serious about any of this?? Almost certainly not, but if anything that makes her worse. She talks like this for money to people who think it's funny. Her entire shtick is making liberals seem sub-human. The fact that this woman has a column running in newspapers across the country and is on TV every other day is proof positive we don't have a "PC" or free speech problem in this country.
Thank you for detailed answer, @jjstraka34 - and I'm sorry if you lost a job because you don't fit a stereotype. That's unfair and undeserved. If that was a case, it's an example of mechanism that worries me - possibility of forcing certain behaviours, views, etc. by economic pressure, not public, governmental oppression. This is a reason I hesitate to agree that freedom of speech should only vertically (so in relation citizen - state) - because mechanism of ostracism may be dangerous. I agree with your points about need to protect employees from such a leverage. As for poeple who own bussiness - it makes me think about example from my country, when part of polish majority was boycotting shops owned by Jews (cuz antisemitism, economical patriotism and so on). I wonder if we could say that rights of (polish) jewish population are protected, if, let's say, 90% of population would boycott their bussinesses. I hope I'm not babbling (I haven't slept tonight).
@deltago - I'm glad you bring up this ruling, because I think it's an example how rights can be protected in horizontal relations as well. Some other bench would say that as long as state doesn't discriminate homosexual, everything is fine.
Milo was the one example. And Coutler and Milo and right wingers encourage violence. Trump was telling people to rough up people he didn't like during his rallies. And right wingers are all about guns and being tough whatever that means (hiding behind a gun?) You reap what you sow.
Liberal professors outnumber right wingers. Why is that? Pure speculation but I think there's a number of reasons.
Maybe it's because many right wingers don't believe in science they have their own "Beliefs" such as vaccinations cause autism and other unproven or flatly disproven theories.
They are often capitalistic too, the pursuit of money and power is more important that the pursuit of knowledge. Being a professor usually doesn't pay a whole hell of a lot - often because right wing politicians seem to be always trying to cut education budgets. A desire to be highly paid discourages the conversation from their pursuit.
Right wingers often lack of patience and curiosity. They have all the answers already, why bother to explore and spend time thinking? Could you imagine sexual harrasers like Bill O'Reilly, Trump, or Roger Allies teaching a class on anything? Hell no, they don't have the patience or empathy to work with students and their big egos don't tolerate questions as we've seen.
My hot take is that they could get in - but their nutty ideas, a lack of scientific thinking, a lack of empathy and patience doesn't particularly attract them to this profession.
No. The poorer working-class tend to be more right-leaning.
Poorer people put more emphasis on earning money then what you term as 'the pursuit of knowledge' in academia because, as you state, academics don't really get paid well.
Poorer people have more distrust of Government because for a high-income earner, Higher taxes is annoying but not devastating.
For many many poor people, a slight increase in petrol, a slight increase in food prices, a slight decrease in their wages, a slight increase in taxes is enough to permanently make it impossible for them to keep their house over their head or afford education for their children.
Poor working class have just as much empathy as you or i, They tend to have a much more disciplinarian approach to helping people, Because they come from a environment where it is drilled into them that it is all up to you to get ahead and no one is going to help you.
In regards to 'curiosity' apart from the fact that when your poor you don't have the luxury of spending afternoons going to a library to read a book, Education in academia is nothing more then trying to make skilled workers, Not informed individuals about the World.
And the idea that Professor's enter that profession because of some 'search for knowledge' lol, thats not really true at all, Thats kind of a romantic idea of that profession.
I'll also remind you that the attitudes to what you deem as 'right-wing' and i would say you don't think highly of, was the norm during the Generations that Historians consider The Greatest Generation.. The Generation that lived through and persevered through Two World Wars and a Depression.
So if i was to look at history, and Judge attitudes and the overall benefit, I would have to say that what you deem as 'right-wing' attitudes tends to be more successful attitudes in history when there is difficulty in society.
So the outlook that you seem to support has not yet been tested as thoroughly as what you consider 'right-wing' (or really conservatism) so to consider it more flawed isn't reflected in history.
Can we, um, not mock people based on their weight please? And especially not praise a meme for doing so?
Who mocked someone for their weight? I didn't create the meme (I used to be a fat-ass once upon a time so I have empathy for the obese)
Also who praised the meme? If anything I slightly mocked the meme creators (calling them kekistani's isn't enough?)
Like it or not, we live in a superficial world hence appearance always plays a role in politics. Being "attractive" was one of the talking points of Trudeau. While I believe Donald Trump gets criticism for... being an orange?
I have to agree here. I have listened to conservative media rip on colleges and higher education for, literally, decades. Why is it, exactly, that they are now so keen on getting speaking engagements at places they have, historically, had nothing but mockery and derision for??
Because it pays well (as in free advertising)
Also because they deserve the "ripping". Life in any educational precinct as a non-hippie conservative (in Australia at least) can really suck. I have literally given up even trying to be honest everytime I write an essay or exam. So now I always lie...
Teo_live:"multiculteralism is great for business because blahblahblah diversity blahblah equity blahblah climate change" Teacher: Well done, I really like you writing
Do adults needs the guiding hand of others to tell them what political ideas or what humor they can or can not expose themselves to? I don't think they do and don't see it as a legitimate reason for censorship.
As why conservatives want on college campuses, it's an effective electoral strategy. Sell your ideas to the young enough to vote but not old enough to be set in their ways.
Is it not possible that the reason why educated people veer liberal is NOT some massive yet totally undocumented liberal conspiracy of some sort?
Religious folks veer conservative. The clergy veer conservative. But I don't draw the conclusion that the GOP has secretly infiltrated churches in an attempt to spread their ideas and win elections.
I have a much simpler explanation. Religious leaders tend to be conservative because American conservatives value religion more.
I apply the same standard to academia. Academics tend to be liberal because American liberals value education more.
I'll also remind you that the attitudes to what you deem as 'right-wing' and i would say you don't think highly of, was the norm during the Generations that Historians consider The Greatest Generation.. The Generation that lived through and persevered through Two World Wars and a Depression.
So if i was to look at history, and Judge attitudes and the overall benefit, I would have to say that what you deem as 'right-wing' attitudes tends to be more successful attitudes in history when there is difficulty in society.
So the outlook that you seem to support has not yet been tested as thoroughly as what you consider 'right-wing' (or really conservatism) so to consider it more flawed isn't reflected in history.
The thing is, America throughout history, up until the first half of the 20th century, was the bastion of liberalism. Then Europe took a larger turn towards the welfare state as a backlash of the social injustices of the late 19th century than America did, and so Europe became more liberal than America.
America was FOUNDED on liberal ideas. Egalitarianism, freedom of oppression, separation of church and state, and so forth. Those are NOT conservative ideas. They sure as hell weren't in the 17th and 18th century when the seeds of the Enlightenment that became the core of liberalism were thought up by philosophers and the founders of America. Even now those are not ideas espoused by conservatives.
As an aside, I don't think you should ascribe 1-1.5 entire generations to being "right-wing" and say that you win because they were more conservative than they are today. Clearly there were LOTS of "left-wing" people in the first half of the 20th century. I point to the women's suffrage movement and labor unions (before they were even legally protected to boot) as evidence that the Greatest Generation was hardly a homogenous block of social conservatives that all went to church and all got married and had half a dozen childen each and thought that rampant corporatism was the best thing ever and nothing should EVER change, EVER.
Let's bear in mind that liberal meant something very different in the 18th, 19th, and even the early 20th centuries. In the 1700s and 1800s, being liberal simply meant being pro-democracy. In the 1800s and early 1900s, being liberal simply meant you supported democracy and some other measures of equality, like class equality, gender equality, and racial equality. All were progressive at the time, but these days, they are kind of basic issues that most people in the free world already agree on.
I don't know so much about Europe, but liberal in the United States tends to mean you favor strong regulations on business, higher taxes on the wealthy, higher spending on the poor and the elderly, fewer military involvements abroad, and minimal government involvement in social issues.
A hundred years ago, liberalism focused on more basic things, like whether women could vote. We can't collapse the difference between the liberalism of today and the liberalism of yesterday.
No. The poorer working-class tend to be more right-leaning.
Which is damned ironic given that liberal policies benefit them more.
Maybe 100 years ago.
Now they seem to just care more about virtue signalling, cultural Marxism, Greens ideology and mass migration (illegal or otherwise). The working class tend to veer to the alternative choices.
Is it not possible that the reason why educated people veer liberal is NOT some massive yet totally undocumented liberal conspiracy of some sort?
Other than the hippie baby-boomers forcing their ideology down our throats?
I don't mind any particular group leaning left or right (pretty much everyone I PnP DnD with are greenies) however I draw the line once I am FORCED to comply with ideology. I learned the hard way that being a conservative or even just skeptical centrist simply "isn't allowed" in secondary and higher education and such actions will almost always get you marked down (or worse...).
The workplace isn't any better. God knows how many times I had to pretend to be a liberal just to get and/or retain a damn government job. Even with a conservative government we are still forced to pretend we are progressive, they haven't changed a damn thing!
So yeah the concept of "free speech" (and it's advocates such as Milo) are generally held in VERY high regards for people like myself who are forced to masquerade as a leftist...
@Quickblade you are using terms somewhat ambiguously here.
It is mainly America that use the term 'Conservatives' (Not Europe) and America was....founded with the Constitution which upholds Freedom of Speech, Separation of Church, Right to bear and own Guns.
Therefore Conservatives (the approach of slow change and upholding original culture, fiscal conservatism) strongly supports the Constitution, Indeed the Constitution tends to be uphold as sacrosanct by many Conservatives and is one of the core characteristics of this group.
Conservatives overlap alot with Libertarians, in fact they overlap the most. The only sore point is the promotion of Christianity in the public sphere.
As to what approach benefits who the most, It is historically conservatism. This is not based on theory, but cold History, the Conservative approach was the norm during the period of WW1-WW2-Depression and it saw us through all those successfully.
If your talking about Europe, they don't use the term Conservatives, You might be thinking of Nationalism.
There is also now a distinction between Liberalism and Classical Liberalism, Or Liberals and libertarians.
What you describe generally falls under Classical Liberalism, Not modern Liberalism.
unfortunately because people who describe themselves as liberals over time promoted ideals that strayed from Classical Liberalism.
One key defining issue is Government, Conservatives advocate smaller Government, Liberals advocate bigger Government (insofar as Government is used as a vehicle for virtually every social reform they want), Libertarians tend to fall for smaller Government too.
I'd also remind you that the major force behind ending slavery for Blacks in America was Lincoln (a Republican) and Christian Churches.
The major force for ending slavery in the Entire World was the British Empire, they ended the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the Ancient Middle-East slave trade (one of the few truly global and altruistic acts of any civilization).
A little discussed fact of history.
I explain this simply to dispel the simplistic and inaccurate portrayal of history.
I do always have to laugh whenever someone talks about "higher taxes on the wealthy"--not to mean that @semiticgod is actually saying that taxes on the wealthy should be raised, only that liberals tend to favor that idea (which they do)--because the person saying that also typically tries to present the idea that the government *needs* that tax revenue in order to pay for the other social programs which liberals espouse. That idea of taxation, which still gets propagated on a weekly basis by talking head shows, is wildly out of date. If the government needs $1 billion to pay for Medicare it just prints the money and spends it. Taxation exists only to restrict the money supply so that printing money does not lead to a devalued currency and inflation.
Q: If liberals do not approve of military involvement overseas, why did so many of them approve of our little interventions during both of Obama's Administrations? A: During their next election campaign their opponent(s) will hammer them for being "weak on terror".
Conservatives dislike social programs not because they help people who need help; instead, such programs have the appearance of taking money from people who have it and giving it those who do not. On the one hand, most people approve of Robin Hood because he also opposed a corrupt and illegitimate government; on the other hand, if I rob you of your money it is a crime even if I am giving it away to poor people but if the government robs you then it is legal. The reality of social programs is irrelevant--it is the *perception* which causes most conservative to oppose them.
Ironically, even though wealthy conservative people will publicly voice their opposition to social programs they are also the ones who contribute to charitable causes the most. They don't mind their money going to help those who need help as long as it is their choice to do so.
Although it is generally very good advice not to label other people, most of us do a pretty good job at labeling ourselves, thus limiting our own options and pigeonholing ourselves as if that label is some form of self-identity. "I'm a liberal", someone might say, but the very act of them saying that also often prevents them from being able to remove themselves from the equation and view a situation from a detached point of view. If more people would stop using self-imposed labels then better political discussions may take place.
Conservatives dislike social programs not because they help people who need help; instead, such programs have the appearance of taking money from people who have it and giving it those who do not. On the one hand, most people approve of Robin Hood because he also opposed a corrupt and illegitimate government; on the other hand, if I rob you of your money it is a crime even if I am giving it away to poor people but if the government robs you then it is legal. The reality of social programs is irrelevant--it is the *perception* which causes most conservative to oppose them.
Absolutely, In fact i don't know where this idea of 'Conservatism' being vastly different from classical liberalism came from, They have the most overlap.
The philosophy of Classical Liberalism actually promotes small Government and disdains the welfare state, hell the philosophical fathers of Classical liberalism literally wrote not to have a welfare state because they wanted economic liberty more then anything else which is exactly the attitude of Conservative groups and where modern liberal groups have strayed very far from.
And if we read the early writings of these philosophers, in Fact economic liberty is what they focused on.
I think most people, when they talk about these groups in a historical fashion, Actually haven't looked looked at their historical origins lol.
@Mathsorcerer: The point is kind of moot. Neither party advocates printing money as an alternative to taxation for the purposes of paying for programs. Yes, the government could print money instead of taxing people, but currently, no one is supporting that option. When the government does not have the money to pay for everything, it prefers to borrow money. Deficit spending, not printing money, is the standard alternative to a balanced budget--that's what happens when spending exceeds revenue in this country.
I'd also remind you that the major force behind ending slavery for Blacks in America was Lincoln (a Republican) and Christian Churches.
I'd not heard about the role of churches in the abolition movement, but the example of Lincoln is misleading: the Republican party was not a conservative party back then. It was a progressive and liberal party until LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, aligning the Democratic party with the civil rights movement.
For most of its history, the Republican party's domain was a coalition of white urban East Coast elites and poor blacks (partly because both groups favored racial equality) while the Democratic party's domain was poor Southern whites (partly because they opposed racial equality). Only after 1964 did blacks shift over to the Democratic party and Southern whites shift to the Republican party.
The old arrangement actually made more sense than the current one. Then and now, rich people veer to the right on fiscal issues (lower taxes), but to the left on social issues (like abortion); poor people veer to the left on fiscal issues (welfare programs) but to the right on social issues (gay marriage).
My dad comes from a poor family but now is very wealthy and his colleagues are all very rich people. Both groups are overwhelmingly Republican, but for completely different reasons. His religious family votes Republican because they care deeply about social issues--for them, it's not about taxes.
But my dad's colleagues don't have any problem with gay marriage or abortion, and they don't really care about gun rights and the like. They veer Democrat on virtually every social issue. They only vote Republican because GOP tax policies are more profitable for rich people like them.
Back in the day, the Republican party was on the side of the Union. These days, the GOP is strongest in former Confederate states.
I'd avoid using the terms 'liberals' and 'progressives' as denotation for groups during Lincoln's era, This unfortunately tends to misleadingly marry the terms to modern liberal and 'progressive' groups when they were very very different and lived in a different time.
They were mainly conservative, because conservatism back then was simply the Norm, kind of like saying Christianity was the norm back then, so in fact the term conservative isn't helpful, what this meant was that even under a conservative society back then there were many sub-groups (Whigs?), We might as well say Northern and Southern really.
Also, it is inaccurate to portray the issue of the North vs the South as one of 'progressives' against 'regressives', The major political fear for the Northern States was that if they accepted slavery the Southern States would control U.S. Politics and the economy because the Southern States heavily depended on the slave trade to drive their economy as opposed to the Northern States.
This is evident because while the Republicans (from the support of the Northern States) rammed home Constitutional amendments to guarantee the end of slavery, they were remarkably slow to expand this further on Black rights.
In much the same way for the Democrats, after they secured the Black vote via the Civil Rights Act, They have been remarkably ineffective in improving the economic conditions of the black community and spend more of their time courting other minority groups.
When it comes to politics, all they care about is votes, once they get it, they don't really think about you anymore.
Republicans abandoned minority voters when they adopted Nixon's southern strategy. Every southern Dixecrat instantly changed parties after the '64 Civil Rights Act, and that is still the paradigm we exist in today. When LBJ said he was signing away the South for a generation, he was correct but also vastly underestimated just how deep down the white backlash rabbit-hole Republicans would be willing to go. They have had all their chips in on it since Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign (purposefully) in Philadelphia, MS (the location of notorious civil rights murders) and talked about "state's rights". If you want to know why almost 90% of African-Americans support Democrats in elections, it's because the foundation of the modern Republican Party is rooted in a backlash to the Civil Rights Movment (and the '60s in general). And you don't have to take my word for it. Just go listen to audio of someone like Lee Atwater giving away the game.
The modern Republican parties roots (well pre-Trump) wasn't a backlash against the civil rights movement and that sort of thinking seems to honestly come from 'Republicans are racist' propaganda.
When Wilson became President, he dramatically expanded Government power (a theme that is common in democrat presidents) and the Republican party objected to it, and one of their themes was its affect on business (which again has been a theme of Republican party).
The South which always had a skepticism of Government ever since the Civil War, became easy to win over by the Republican party.
This is in fact what led to Reagan's win later, Because the Southern Democrats (affectionately called Reagan Democrats) started to vote Republican more as Democratic Presidents expanded Government power to affect Business.
For example, take a look at the Taft-Hartley bill, a bill that smashed the power of Unions in the Southern States because the South (Both Democrats and Republicans) considered the power of the Unions detrimental to business, this Bill was voted in majority by Democrats.
Yeah....the South was mistrustful of government because the North beat them and they couldn't OWN black people anymore. And then they became even more distrustful of government when they were told in '64 they couldn't treat them as second-class citizens. Period. Full stop. I'm not gonna sit here and entertain revisionist history of why the former Confederacy mistrusts the federal government. The only economic component to it is that they lost their free labor force. They went to war for the right to own human beings.
If you are so emotional about a topic that you join a conversation but then state your no longer going to discuss it.
I advise you to not discuss it in the first place.
'The South' as they were during the civil war, is not the same as 'The South' as they were during either the Nixon or Reagan or Present era, Anymore then Democrats being the party of the KKK as they were originally.
You have a time period of almost 100 years at least for the civil war and Reagan.
You talk about Lee Atwater, but Lee Atwater himself privately stated that Reagan never campaigned based on race but on economics and national security.
"But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference."
Donald Trump thought it would be appropriate to host a guy that called Hillary a 'worthless bitch,' and our last President a 'subhuman mongrel' at the White House.
Ted Nugent , who has been accused of having sex with a 12-year-old, written a song about raping a 13-year-old and adopted a 17-year-old so that he could have sex with her without her parent's permission. He also apparently shat his pants to fail his physical and dodge the draft during the Vietnam War.
When Ted Nugent was 32 years old, he released the song “Jailbait.” Here’s a taste of the lyrics (written by him):
Well, I don’t care if you’re just 13 You look too good to be true I just know that you’re probably clean... Jailbait you look fine, fine, fine... It’s quite alright, I asked your mama Wait a minute, officer Don’t put those handcuffs on me Put them on her, and I’ll share her with you
The albums’ next track is titled “I Am a Predator.” I’m not kidding.
Not exactly a guy worthy of being in the White House that was just one of the deplorables here pictured.
If you are so emotional about a topic that you join a conversation but then state your no longer going to discuss it.
I advise you to not discuss it in the first place.
'The South' as they were during the civil war, is not the same as 'The South' as they were during either the Nixon or Reagan or Present era, Anymore then Democrats being the party of the KKK as they were originally.
You have a time period of almost 100 years at least for the civil war and Reagan.
You talk about Lee Atwater, but Lee Atwater himself privately stated that Reagan never campaigned based on race but on economics and national security.
"But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference."
The South did not change, the racists in the Democratic Party from the South switched parties, to the point that any discussion of political parties pre-Civil Rights Act has no bearing on how they are aligned today.
"You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can't say “n****r” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”
That quote really tries makes it sound like low taxes are a racist conspiracy. Not buying it personally.
That quote is from a guy ADMITTING they are racist dog whistles when applied in the right way and places. That isn't a quote from some liberal describing it. It's straight from the mouth of one of the most influential Republican campaign operatives of the last 50 years.
The South did not change, the racists in the Democratic Party from the South switched parties, to the point that any discussion of political parties pre-Civil Rights Act has no bearing on how they are aligned today.
"The South is as racist as they were from the beginning" "My political party is no longer the KKK, they can change 180 degrees". "The people that just happen to vote largely for my opposing political party also just happen to be immoral monsters"
That quote is from a guy ADMITTING they are racist dog whistles when applied in the right way and places. That isn't a quote from some liberal describing it. It's straight from the mouth of one of the most influential Republican campaign operatives of the last 50 years.
This 'guy' has stated that Reagan didn't even campaign on racial issues but economics and national security. "But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference."
If you want to use Lee Atwater as some authority on Republican party approach, then you have to accept his statements even if it goes against what you want to believe.
However I'll hold you to your own ideals, Bernie and Hillary both have made racial statements about White People. Under your argument the Democrat party is racist or employs racist political strategies.
However I'll hold you to your own ideals, Bernie and Hillary both have made racial statements about White People. Under your argument the Democrat party is racist or employs racist political strategies.
I recall Bernie saying White People cannot understand hardship, which is a racist remark. Now you can say it was poorly worded, poorly spoken or out of context and he meant something more benign.
Sure, Then you apply that same attitude to political people you disagree with otherwise it is partisanship.
Hillary has called people she was angry with a 'Jew bastard' and her 2008 campaign loved to exaggerate the fear of Obama being a Muslim, to the point Obama asked her to apologize.
Oh but perhaps this was due to political operatives being too unethical and not 'her' and she never meant it.
Comments
Furthermore, this continues to be an issue, as far as society goes, that seems to be strictly confined to disparate college campuses. On the one hand, I find the whole issue ridiculous and next to meaningless. On the other hand, I almost just want to hand over the keys to every college in the country to these people to have their speeches, because once you take colleges out of the equation, this entire "PC culture" construction doesn't even exist.
I would also like to point out, as someone who spent at least a couple years at one, that college is the place where you (at least initially) probably act more irresponsible than at any other time in your life. If we judged the entirety of this country based on their actions when they were college freshman or sophomores, no one would be come out looking clean. Are alot of these protesters acting like dipshits?? You bet. Have I also seen Penn State students riot and almost tear down their campus because they were pissed their football coach got fired for harboring a serial pedophile?? Bet your ass I have. Using the behavior of college students to extrapolate broader trends in society isn't going to get you anywhere.
Now, is Ann Coulter serious about any of this?? Almost certainly not, but if anything that makes her worse. She talks like this for money to people who think it's funny. Her entire shtick is making liberals seem sub-human. The fact that this woman has a column running in newspapers across the country and is on TV every other day is proof positive we don't have a "PC" or free speech problem in this country.
I agree with your points about need to protect employees from such a leverage. As for poeple who own bussiness - it makes me think about example from my country, when part of polish majority was boycotting shops owned by Jews (cuz antisemitism, economical patriotism and so on). I wonder if we could say that rights of (polish) jewish population are protected, if, let's say, 90% of population would boycott their bussinesses.
I hope I'm not babbling (I haven't slept tonight).
@deltago - I'm glad you bring up this ruling, because I think it's an example how rights can be protected in horizontal relations as well. Some other bench would say that as long as state doesn't discriminate homosexual, everything is fine.
The poorer working-class tend to be more right-leaning.
Poorer people put more emphasis on earning money then what you term as 'the pursuit of knowledge' in academia because, as you state, academics don't really get paid well.
Poorer people have more distrust of Government because for a high-income earner, Higher taxes is annoying but not devastating.
For many many poor people, a slight increase in petrol, a slight increase in food prices, a slight decrease in their wages, a slight increase in taxes is enough to permanently make it impossible for them to keep their house over their head or afford education for their children.
Poor working class have just as much empathy as you or i, They tend to have a much more disciplinarian approach to helping people, Because they come from a environment where it is drilled into them that it is all up to you to get ahead and no one is going to help you.
In regards to 'curiosity' apart from the fact that when your poor you don't have the luxury of spending afternoons going to a library to read a book, Education in academia is nothing more then trying to make skilled workers, Not informed individuals about the World.
And the idea that Professor's enter that profession because of some 'search for knowledge' lol, thats not really true at all, Thats kind of a romantic idea of that profession.
I'll also remind you that the attitudes to what you deem as 'right-wing' and i would say you don't think highly of, was the norm during the Generations that Historians consider The Greatest Generation..
The Generation that lived through and persevered through Two World Wars and a Depression.
So if i was to look at history, and Judge attitudes and the overall benefit, I would have to say that what you deem as 'right-wing' attitudes tends to be more successful attitudes in history when there is difficulty in society.
So the outlook that you seem to support has not yet been tested as thoroughly as what you consider 'right-wing' (or really conservatism) so to consider it more flawed isn't reflected in history.
Also who praised the meme? If anything I slightly mocked the meme creators (calling them kekistani's isn't enough?)
Like it or not, we live in a superficial world hence appearance always plays a role in politics. Being "attractive" was one of the talking points of Trudeau. While I believe Donald Trump gets criticism for... being an orange?
Also because they deserve the "ripping". Life in any educational precinct as a non-hippie conservative (in Australia at least) can really suck. I have literally given up even trying to be honest everytime I write an essay or exam. So now I always lie...
Teo_live:"multiculteralism is great for business because blahblahblah diversity blahblah equity blahblah climate change"
Teacher: Well done, I really like you writing
.........
As why conservatives want on college campuses, it's an effective electoral strategy. Sell your ideas to the young enough to vote but not old enough to be set in their ways.
Religious folks veer conservative. The clergy veer conservative. But I don't draw the conclusion that the GOP has secretly infiltrated churches in an attempt to spread their ideas and win elections.
I have a much simpler explanation. Religious leaders tend to be conservative because American conservatives value religion more.
I apply the same standard to academia. Academics tend to be liberal because American liberals value education more.
America was FOUNDED on liberal ideas. Egalitarianism, freedom of oppression, separation of church and state, and so forth. Those are NOT conservative ideas. They sure as hell weren't in the 17th and 18th century when the seeds of the Enlightenment that became the core of liberalism were thought up by philosophers and the founders of America. Even now those are not ideas espoused by conservatives.
As an aside, I don't think you should ascribe 1-1.5 entire generations to being "right-wing" and say that you win because they were more conservative than they are today. Clearly there were LOTS of "left-wing" people in the first half of the 20th century. I point to the women's suffrage movement and labor unions (before they were even legally protected to boot) as evidence that the Greatest Generation was hardly a homogenous block of social conservatives that all went to church and all got married and had half a dozen childen each and thought that rampant corporatism was the best thing ever and nothing should EVER change, EVER.
I don't know so much about Europe, but liberal in the United States tends to mean you favor strong regulations on business, higher taxes on the wealthy, higher spending on the poor and the elderly, fewer military involvements abroad, and minimal government involvement in social issues.
A hundred years ago, liberalism focused on more basic things, like whether women could vote. We can't collapse the difference between the liberalism of today and the liberalism of yesterday.
Now they seem to just care more about virtue signalling, cultural Marxism, Greens ideology and mass migration (illegal or otherwise). The working class tend to veer to the alternative choices. Other than the hippie baby-boomers forcing their ideology down our throats?
I don't mind any particular group leaning left or right (pretty much everyone I PnP DnD with are greenies) however I draw the line once I am FORCED to comply with ideology. I learned the hard way that being a conservative or even just skeptical centrist simply "isn't allowed" in secondary and higher education and such actions will almost always get you marked down (or worse...).
The workplace isn't any better. God knows how many times I had to pretend to be a liberal just to get and/or retain a damn government job. Even with a conservative government we are still forced to pretend we are progressive, they haven't changed a damn thing!
So yeah the concept of "free speech" (and it's advocates such as Milo) are generally held in VERY high regards for people like myself who are forced to masquerade as a leftist...
@Quickblade you are using terms somewhat ambiguously here.
It is mainly America that use the term 'Conservatives' (Not Europe) and America was....founded with the Constitution which upholds Freedom of Speech, Separation of Church, Right to bear and own Guns.
Therefore Conservatives (the approach of slow change and upholding original culture, fiscal conservatism) strongly supports the Constitution, Indeed the Constitution tends to be uphold as sacrosanct by many Conservatives and is one of the core characteristics of this group.
Conservatives overlap alot with Libertarians, in fact they overlap the most.
The only sore point is the promotion of Christianity in the public sphere.
As to what approach benefits who the most, It is historically conservatism.
This is not based on theory, but cold History, the Conservative approach was the norm during the period of WW1-WW2-Depression and it saw us through all those successfully.
If your talking about Europe, they don't use the term Conservatives, You might be thinking of Nationalism.
There is also now a distinction between Liberalism and Classical Liberalism, Or Liberals and libertarians.
What you describe generally falls under Classical Liberalism, Not modern Liberalism.
unfortunately because people who describe themselves as liberals over time promoted ideals that strayed from Classical Liberalism.
One key defining issue is Government, Conservatives advocate smaller Government, Liberals advocate bigger Government (insofar as Government is used as a vehicle for virtually every social reform they want), Libertarians tend to fall for smaller Government too.
I'd also remind you that the major force behind ending slavery for Blacks in America was Lincoln (a Republican) and Christian Churches.
The major force for ending slavery in the Entire World was the British Empire, they ended the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the Ancient Middle-East slave trade (one of the few truly global and altruistic acts of any civilization).
A little discussed fact of history.
I explain this simply to dispel the simplistic and inaccurate portrayal of history.
Q: If liberals do not approve of military involvement overseas, why did so many of them approve of our little interventions during both of Obama's Administrations?
A: During their next election campaign their opponent(s) will hammer them for being "weak on terror".
Conservatives dislike social programs not because they help people who need help; instead, such programs have the appearance of taking money from people who have it and giving it those who do not. On the one hand, most people approve of Robin Hood because he also opposed a corrupt and illegitimate government; on the other hand, if I rob you of your money it is a crime even if I am giving it away to poor people but if the government robs you then it is legal. The reality of social programs is irrelevant--it is the *perception* which causes most conservative to oppose them.
Ironically, even though wealthy conservative people will publicly voice their opposition to social programs they are also the ones who contribute to charitable causes the most. They don't mind their money going to help those who need help as long as it is their choice to do so.
Although it is generally very good advice not to label other people, most of us do a pretty good job at labeling ourselves, thus limiting our own options and pigeonholing ourselves as if that label is some form of self-identity. "I'm a liberal", someone might say, but the very act of them saying that also often prevents them from being able to remove themselves from the equation and view a situation from a detached point of view. If more people would stop using self-imposed labels then better political discussions may take place.
The philosophy of Classical Liberalism actually promotes small Government and disdains the welfare state, hell the philosophical fathers of Classical liberalism literally wrote not to have a welfare state because they wanted economic liberty more then anything else which is exactly the attitude of Conservative groups and where modern liberal groups have strayed very far from.
And if we read the early writings of these philosophers, in Fact economic liberty is what they focused on.
I think most people, when they talk about these groups in a historical fashion, Actually haven't looked looked at their historical origins lol.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39662315
I hear that the gunman was using an AK-47.
Its disheartening to keep hearing these shootings in Paris.
For most of its history, the Republican party's domain was a coalition of white urban East Coast elites and poor blacks (partly because both groups favored racial equality) while the Democratic party's domain was poor Southern whites (partly because they opposed racial equality). Only after 1964 did blacks shift over to the Democratic party and Southern whites shift to the Republican party.
The old arrangement actually made more sense than the current one. Then and now, rich people veer to the right on fiscal issues (lower taxes), but to the left on social issues (like abortion); poor people veer to the left on fiscal issues (welfare programs) but to the right on social issues (gay marriage).
My dad comes from a poor family but now is very wealthy and his colleagues are all very rich people. Both groups are overwhelmingly Republican, but for completely different reasons. His religious family votes Republican because they care deeply about social issues--for them, it's not about taxes.
But my dad's colleagues don't have any problem with gay marriage or abortion, and they don't really care about gun rights and the like. They veer Democrat on virtually every social issue. They only vote Republican because GOP tax policies are more profitable for rich people like them.
Back in the day, the Republican party was on the side of the Union. These days, the GOP is strongest in former Confederate states.
They were mainly conservative, because conservatism back then was simply the Norm, kind of like saying Christianity was the norm back then, so in fact the term conservative isn't helpful, what this meant was that even under a conservative society back then there were many sub-groups (Whigs?), We might as well say Northern and Southern really.
Also, it is inaccurate to portray the issue of the North vs the South as one of 'progressives' against 'regressives', The major political fear for the Northern States was that if they accepted slavery the Southern States would control U.S. Politics and the economy because the Southern States heavily depended on the slave trade to drive their economy as opposed to the Northern States.
This is evident because while the Republicans (from the support of the Northern States) rammed home Constitutional amendments to guarantee the end of slavery, they were remarkably slow to expand this further on Black rights.
In much the same way for the Democrats, after they secured the Black vote via the Civil Rights Act, They have been remarkably ineffective in improving the economic conditions of the black community and spend more of their time courting other minority groups.
When it comes to politics, all they care about is votes, once they get it, they don't really think about you anymore.
When Wilson became President, he dramatically expanded Government power (a theme that is common in democrat presidents) and the Republican party objected to it, and one of their themes was its affect on business (which again has been a theme of Republican party).
The South which always had a skepticism of Government ever since the Civil War, became easy to win over by the Republican party.
This is in fact what led to Reagan's win later, Because the Southern Democrats (affectionately called Reagan Democrats) started to vote Republican more as Democratic Presidents expanded Government power to affect Business.
For example, take a look at the Taft-Hartley bill, a bill that smashed the power of Unions in the Southern States because the South (Both Democrats and Republicans) considered the power of the Unions detrimental to business, this Bill was voted in majority by Democrats.
I advise you to not discuss it in the first place.
'The South' as they were during the civil war, is not the same as 'The South' as they were during either the Nixon or Reagan or Present era, Anymore then Democrats being the party of the KKK as they were originally.
You have a time period of almost 100 years at least for the civil war and Reagan.
You talk about Lee Atwater, but Lee Atwater himself privately stated that Reagan never campaigned based on race but on economics and national security.
"But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference."
Ted Nugent , who has been accused of having sex with a 12-year-old, written a song about raping a 13-year-old and adopted a 17-year-old so that he could have sex with her without her parent's permission. He also apparently shat his pants to fail his physical and dodge the draft during the Vietnam War.
When Ted Nugent was 32 years old, he released the song “Jailbait.” Here’s a taste of the lyrics (written by him):
Well, I don’t care if you’re just 13
You look too good to be true
I just know that you’re probably clean...
Jailbait you look fine, fine, fine...
It’s quite alright, I asked your mama
Wait a minute, officer
Don’t put those handcuffs on me
Put them on her, and I’ll share her with you
The albums’ next track is titled “I Am a Predator.” I’m not kidding.
Not exactly a guy worthy of being in the White House that was just one of the deplorables here pictured.
"You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can't say “n****r” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”
Lee Atwater, 1981
"My political party is no longer the KKK, they can change 180 degrees".
"The people that just happen to vote largely for my opposing political party also just happen to be immoral monsters"
These are not convincing arguments. This 'guy' has stated that Reagan didn't even campaign on racial issues but economics and national security.
"But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference."
If you want to use Lee Atwater as some authority on Republican party approach, then you have to accept his statements even if it goes against what you want to believe.
However I'll hold you to your own ideals, Bernie and Hillary both have made racial statements about White People.
Under your argument the Democrat party is racist or employs racist political strategies.
We all totally recall Hillary saying she has a great relationship with the Whites. And there was that time that Bernie was asked a question by a white reporter and Bernie was like oh all you white people know each other right, so why don't you set up a meet with me and the white caucus. And Hillary totally wanted white racist Steve Bannon in her administration. No wait all those things were Trump or things Trump said about black people.
Now you can say it was poorly worded, poorly spoken or out of context and he meant something more benign.
Sure, Then you apply that same attitude to political people you disagree with otherwise it is partisanship.
Hillary has called people she was angry with a 'Jew bastard' and her 2008 campaign loved to exaggerate the fear of Obama being a Muslim, to the point Obama asked her to apologize.
Oh but perhaps this was due to political operatives being too unethical and not 'her' and she never meant it.
Ok, apply that standard to Republican party then.