We have been discussing the rapid erosion of free speech on our campuses and the increasing confrontations with students who bar speech with which they disagree. (Here and here and here and here) The most disturbing aspect of this trend has been the active support of academics and administrators, including defining the prevention of free speech as an exercise of free speech. The result is that schools are caving into academic demands made by students. The latest example is the action taken by the State University of New York at Oswego administrator, who reprimanded a student for making other students feel “uncomfortable” by raising liberal intolerance of free speech at an “Open Mic” event last month. Nicole Miller was called out under an “unofficial policy” — thereby confirming the very point of her remarks.
SUNY Alcohol and Other Drug Program Coordinator, Trisha DeWolf contacted Miller to tell her that her discussion of free speech left other students uncomfortable:
“It was brought to my attention that students were uncomfortable with the letter that Nicole read during open mic last week. While I am in support of your freedom of speech, I was implored to reach out you both by more than one student . . . Anytime I receive a complaint I have to follow up. The unwritten policy has always been after one complaint, you receive a verbal warning and any complaint after than may result in being asked to not perform at open mic. I’ve already had to utilize this unwritten rule once this semester.”
Despite DeWolf’s claim of support for free speech, it clearly sounds like Miller is being called out for exercising that right. Yet, Miller merely read a letter during the event that described the experience of a “conservative woman” on a “liberal campus.” She raised the intolerance of some on the left for opposing views — something that we have discussed repeatedly on this blog.
In what proved a prophetic observation, Miller said
“I’ve been on this campus for almost 3 years now and let me tell you it’s been hard to show my beliefs here . . . It sickens me to death that the people that preach tolerance and acceptance of all people are so openly against us and our beliefs. . . . I’ve heard many stories from others like me who were attacked for their beliefs . . . People had their personal property destroyed, their own lives threatened, and administration has done nothing because [we’re] ‘Trump lovers’ . . . The ‘tolerant left’ isn’t very tolerant when it comes to those their same age who have different beliefs.”
DeWolf noted that her comments could “negatively impact the LSC or Open Mic” and the event “is suppose [sic] to be fun way celebrate the end of the semester.”
She then added “A few of our students were deeply hurt by some of your remarks (their words, not mine). Moving forward, there will be written guidelines for performers, which I hate to have to do.”
That sounds a lot like a content-based regulation of speech. So is SUNY going to bar students from raising what they view as free speech intolerance. How about race intolerance? Would that also be proscribed?
Apparently students were discomforted by another student expressing her discomfort over speech intolerance. We recently discussed the alternative approach found in the courageous stand of the University of Chicago against the growing speech codes and “safe spaces” in campuses around the country. Colleges should be forum for a diversity of ideas and values. Some of those ideas will thrill and some will annoy, but they all are part of an open intellectual community. It is not enough for DeWolf to give a perfunctory nod toward free speech while threatening the regulation of future speech and the need to address any comments that might discomfort other students. Her letter should be formally retracted and SUNY should give serious thought to whether it will be a force for free speech or one of the rising number of institutions seeking its curtailment in the name of comfort.
136 thoughts on “SUNY Student Reprimanded Under “Unwritten Policy” For Criticizing Liberal Intolerance At Open Mic Event”
Miller to Dewolf: “I am uncomfortable with the complaints of those students. Please follow up and send a verbal warning to each of them.”
There’s a pronounced differences of style between Nicole Miller and the students who complained to the Administration. Nicole didn’t complain to Admin when she was attacked verbally, property destroyed or threatened online. Nicole presented her grievance and request for fairness and tolerance to her fellow students at Open Mic nite. Do you see the difference in styles? One is collegial and the other is authoritarian.
JT, what kind of so-called people have you brought out on this site? The group think is only one way……Theirs, and heaven forbid if someone has a comment that does not agree with their preconceived thinking. There is no more free thought, nor understanding of ideas. And if you dare bring up the idea that the group-think does not like, you are attacked as a leftwing commie or worse. And your site loves to talk about free speech.
FishWings – free speech allows us to attack commie leftwingers 😉
In the incident JT reports a left leaning administrator threatens to silence a conservative speaker by FORCE.
Far too many on all sides have sought to use force to supress views they did not like in the past.
But at this moment in time the only consequential threat to free speach is from the LEFT.
No one outside the left is threatening or using FORCE to silence views they do not like.
No one on this blog is saying you are not free to think as you wish.
You seem to confusing noting that your viewpoint is stupid, fallacious, and failed, with with use of FORCE.
You are perfectly free to think whatever you want, and say whatever you want.
and your are subject to the criticism of the rest of us who will also think whatever we want and say whatever we want.
That is ACTUAL free speach.
You do not supress other viewpoints by criticising them – it is ONLY the use of FORCE to silence another point of view that is wrong.
Further you are echoing the common left wing self contradictory garbage that all viewpoints are equal – though someone that equality of views only applies to theirs.
All viewpoints are not equal. Most are WRONG – that is as a matter of logic, not judgement.
If there are 10 views on something that all contradict at most ONE can be fully correct.
Often ALL are wrong.
All opinions are entitled to expression. They are NOT Equally in any other way.
It is through expression and debate than we evaluate their relative truth.
The purported lopsided perspective on this blogs represents the fact that the overwhelming majority have weighed your view and found it WRONG.
Worthy of ridicule – not suppression.
The process you are criticizing IS free speach.
You are entitled to express your viewpoint.
You are not entitled to respect for it. That you have to earn – by making compelling arguments that convince others. If you are attacked for the failure of your arguments – then you have FAILED,
And that failure is YOURS.
Even if you were actually right – which you are not, that does not entitle you to prevail or to supress criticism.
And you wonder why you are labeled as a left wing commie ?
If you do not wish to be found stupid, do not say stupid things.
CV Brown – sure, blame PH on me. We have several trolls.
And yet, a comic says a couple of jokes at a dinner party and the right-wing heads explode.
That was a “comic?”
By the way, Americans are “legally precluded,” having their right to freedom of speech nullified and denied, from the “comedy” of calling her the name most descriptive.
Ain’t America great?
The New Americans hate the Constitution and the Founders.
Well there’s an inapposite comment from (far) left field. What I saw were people criticizing a rude and unfunny comic. She should feel free to be rude and unfunny any time she likes. Of course, that has nothing to do with a college suggesting that calling out for free speech should be stifled because it makes people uncomfortable.
Here is an elevator comic who is being threatened with punishment by an academic association for his joke:
“He says he was joking when he asked to be let off an elevator at the ladies’ lingerie department. A female scholar who was attending the same annual meeting of the International Studies Association was not amused, and neither was the association when she complained.”
Prairie Rose – he should have said he self-identified as a woman and was there to try on intimate apparel.
That was a funny joke about women’s lingerie. It was not too off color. People are getting too prim and prissy. Equality does not mean making everyone walk around like they are on mood depressors. The punishment does not fit the crime.
It was only a few decades ago when women were encouraged to be more sexually suggestive, like men, and make off-color jokes or remarks. It was considered more powerful and equal. Now there seems to be a parody of the SNL church lady.
The female scholar to the ISA, “Hmmmm, what did his comment in the elevator remind me of? Let me think. Oh, I don’t know….maybe SATAN!!!”
I agree. And that Dana Carvey skit was funny. Too bad SNL is no longer funny. I once worked with an a man who would get in the elevator and say “Boy do I feel good all under.” It was a line from an underwear commercial that had been on television. Everyone would laugh. I wonder how something like that would go over today.
*an older man…
“She should feel free to be rude and unfunny any time she likes.”
Absolutely ! and the rest of us can laugh – or not, or laugh at her, or criticise.
Free speech is not the right to speak without criticism. It is just the right to speak – without having GOVERNMENT confiscate your property or freedom.
It does not mean people have to like you say or associate with you.
“And yet, a comic says a couple of jokes at a dinner party and the right-wing heads explode.” I do not agree that there is parity. Michelle Wolfe was invited for dinner entertainment. Instead, she was rude, crass, and insulting, and worst of all, she wasn’t funny. This dinner was supposed to be good natured ribbing and droll commentary. Rather than entertain her audience, most people were squirming. In addition, she sent the message that the White House Correspondents dinner is only for Liberals, and non-Liberal Presidents at any time of the future should never attend. The issue is not that she is forbidden to speak; it’s that she was a poor choice in entertainment. If she was a stand up comic and people came to see her, then it’s her show, and she could say whatever she wants. People would vote whether they liked her or not with their feet. Viewers voted that they did not like her at the Dinner.
Of course she has the right to free speech. No one is going to arrest her. She was abominably rude and not funny at all at a dinner that was supposed to be welcoming to all. Instead, she was nasty, and conservatives are unwelcome from now on. Was that her job? I think not.
Criticizing her performance and viciousness is also an exercise in free speech.
How do you even wake up and think? Turning on FOX NEWS is not the answer.
foaming at the mouth again
Reblogged this on The Inquiring Mind and commented:
Another example of the oppression of freedom in the name of freedom
RIGHT-WING MEDIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR POLARIZING NATIONAL DISCOURSE
For 25 years Right Wing Media has perverted our language with regards to political discussions. One can see the effects here on this comment thread. Therefore it’s not surprising that many young Americans frame political discussions from extreme points of view. They have grown-up in an era of cable news and culture wars.
The last time I saw Fox News (in a motel room), a so-called moderator and two pundits were discussing the EPA. Their discussion had no apparent link to any developments that week. It was just a broad, five minute debate regarding the merits of environmental regulation. Said debate ended with the moderator concluding that the EPA is a “fascist entity”. Seriously! His summation was that broad and stupid.
Therefore it isn’t hard to understand that kids growing up hearing such ‘debates’ would frame their own discussions in broad, over-reaching terms. Cable news has dumbed-down America to a shocking extent. Take the term ‘Leftist’, for instance. In the 20th Century ‘Leftist’ implied that a person was either a Communist, Marxist or an extremist on the fringes.
But for years Right-Wing Media has applied the term ‘Leftist’ to virtually every Democrat. The term has been used so freely it no longer means anything. Consequently when ‘genuine leftists’ assert themselves, with extreme language and points of view, the designation of ‘leftist’ now seems trite. Consequently we have no context to place these kids. How can they be ‘extreme’ in the age of Trump?
Thanks to cable news and the culture wars American discourse has gone over-the-top. Fox News, more than anyone, led this reckless trend. By framing every discussion in broad, wild terms Fox has perverted our national discourse to the point where extremist attitudes are now the norm.
You seem to have an incredibly limited knowledge base as to what is happening in the country right now.
How old is Peter ? 12 ? He is completely ignorant of modern history.
dhill, tell me what history I’m overlooking.
I’m old enough to remember the days of big 3 TV networks, evening newspapers, and weekly news magazines that came in the mail. I know where the media has been. And I’ve seen the changes wrought by cable TV and the internet. Some of those changes are positive. News is more accessible and up to date.
But the Culture Wars are stupid! Americans spend way too much time arguing basic facts because cable news networks promote the Culture Wars. The Culture Wars needlessly divide us so pundits on cable news channels can profit. Huge salaries are paid to people promoting divisions. Makes no sense to me.
I’m old enough to remember the days of big 3 TV networks,
Stop making self-indicting remarks.
Of you are old enough to remember what you claim – and quite honestly your remarks come off as someone who has NEVER experience the things you claim – then you also know that things have changed – improved RADICALLY since then.
I recall the “summer of rage” with race riots in major cities in the country.
I recall Stonewall.
I went to college at a time when you could be expelled for being gay.
Get a clue – the culture war is OVER!!!
All that is being determined at the moment is the terms of the armistice.
There are almost no right wing politicians seeking to recriminalize abortions.
At the same time the overwhelming majority of the country would be happy to make abortion difficult or impossible after 24 weeks.
I am NOT discussing what I beleive. I am discussing where we are as a people.
There is almost no one on the right seeking to deprive homosexuals equal rights to heterosexuals.
We are fighting over stupid public accommodation laws which are just idiotic forms of institutionalized discrimination that should have been found unconstitutional decades ago.
We are fighting over what bathrooms the transgendered can use – that is something like 0.1% of the population. And even though MOST of us only want rational rules. We would prefer not to end up with 27 different public restrooms – one for every flavor. We would also prefer not to be forced to explain complex sexual issues to our toddlers before they or we are ready for them. We would also prefer not to end up with teens of mixed genders showering.
In this world – you think that the “right wing media” is dominant and more extreme than ever ?
I do not pay that much attention to on air media and I am not some fax fan.
But I am not so clueless that I fail to understand that they dominate the media because they reflect the views of the majority of people.
And that contrary to your claims the views of the right half of the country are not only NOT extreme, but have been moving slowly left for decades.
Pew noted that after decades of mostly moving closer politically starting about 2009 we have been moving apart. What Pew failed to say – though their data showed was that the shift was ON THE LEFT.
The US Political right has been moving slowly LEFT for decades (probably centuries).
But starting in 2009 the left accelerated its shift left.
This is likely the single most important factor in Trump’s 2016 victory.
Prof. Haidt’s work on moral foundations identified several core attributes of humans.
There are two things that we are incredibly good at – tribalism and religion.
While Tribalism is present strongly in other animals very few can form tribes of the scale that humans can.
Further we are inherently religious. Those on the left have not actual abandoned religion, they have merely made a new religion absent a god. It is still religion and you see in them exactly the same religious fervor as Torquemada, with exactly the same willingness to torture and persecute if necessary to convert.
My point – and what you are entirely oblivious to, is that all the conflict you rant about is inherent in human nature. It is never going away – but WHAT we fight about HAS and WILL change.
That over the long run we will change towards greater individual liberty.
We will do so even though nether side really champions liberty.
We will do so because though the long term political shifts ALWAYS favor the left, they also ALWAYS favor ONLY the liberty portion of what the left wants. Historically the left’s statist strains FAIL – miserably, and in great bloodshed.
So get a clue – the world is a far better place today than it was 40 years ago.
It is better because it is more “liberal” – in the sense of greater individual freedom, NOT in the sense of more left homogenized manufactured rightsm and nanny statism.
Look around you – where has Jerry Falwell gone ? The political right today pays lip service at best to religious and social conservatism.
Today’s “right wing extremists” are the intellectual heirs of Jack Kemp, or Barry Gold Water, not Jesse Helms or Oral Roberts.
JD, you must be new to this blog.
No one reads Peter Hill.
One simply and joyfully skips over his deposits.
George, was I supposed to register with you when I came to this blog?. Like ‘you’ were the doorman I somehow slipped past? Your comments sound like those of a low-paid Security Guard. The kind whose uniform is always a little shabby.
I do not agree with George’s comments – I read your posts, because you say stupid things that provide me the opportunity to raise the issues that I want to discuss.
Regardless, George said nothing about exercising control or using force against you.
Again you make the very common left wing mistake of believing that disagreement constitutes the use of force against you. Or worse as we are seeing with the opposition to Trump – that Trump’s failure to continue to impose by force unconstitutional or illegally concocted programs is some bizzarre form of tyranny.
Some of us understand words using their ordinary meaning.
To us a tyrannt is not someone who terminates lawlessness and returns to the rule of law.
Obama had the opportunity to pass immigration reform Instead he used his pen and phone and acted authoritarian and tyranical, and delivered to the left what they wanted lawlessly.
Trump has reversed that and said – if this is what you want, then get their LAWFULLY – PASS A LAW.
But according to the left Trump is a lawless tyrant, and authoritarian – for applying the law as it is and not continuing the lawlessness, tyranny and authoritarianism of his predecessor.
But back to your remarks. I doubt George and I agree on many things.
But he did not threaten you with force. He did not act as gate keeper,
He merely noted correctly that many people choose wisely to ignore you.
If George wishes he can organize a voluntary boycott of Peter Hill – and that would not involve the slightest “control” of you or use of force against you.
George is making clear how free speach actually works.
It means you can say whatever you wish.
It does not mean you can do so without criticism.
It does not mean that you will be heard.
Freedom, liberty, rights are about what you yourself may freely do.
No legitimate right, no actual freedom, no real liberty, creates a duty in another.
You are NOT entitled to the respect of others – much less anything else from others.
You are entitled ONLY to protection by government from the use of force by others to limit your legitimate freedoms.
The declaration of independence does not say that we form government to CREATE liberties.
It says people form govenrment to SECURE our rights.
The rights come from nature – not government.
The news media isn’t entirely controlled by the likes of Judy Woodruff and Dan Rather. Opposition viewpoints are actually spoken in their own voice and not stewed through approved mouthpieces. Get over it.
Dan Rather’s been gone for 14 years at this point. While Judy Woodruff is looking fairly old. The fact that you seized on those two suggest you’re stuck in a Reagan time warp.
Earth to Peter Hill, Rather is still working, just not at CBS, and he departed CBS in 2006 not 2004. Judy Woodruff anchors PBS nightly broadcast.
How many do I add? George Stephanopolous, Nina Totenberg, Jay Carney? Can we start on the list of those who weren’t employees of Democratic politicians or married to them?
Rather has some marginal podcast. So ‘what’..?? He’s not in any major anchor chair.
And what’s wrong with PBS..?? They’re always perfectly polite and civil to conservative guests. No one’s yelling at anyone there.
I listen to PBS regularly (atleast 100 times more than Fox)
The very RARELY have centerist, much less conservative guests.
PBS and NPR are primarily lefties debating lefties – politely – sometimes.
They are entertaining, informative, polite, sanctimonious and usually wrong.
But the left is unbelievably blockheaded at grasping the obvious from the data.
I recently went to a seminar at a local college presenting some purportedly new discoveries in “health care” and “social work”.
It was amazing – the data was compelling and convincing. What groups like Family Reseach Council – you know that Right wing hate group, have been saying for years proved absolutely correct.
If you reduce violence – people prosper.
If you keep families intact – people prosper.
If you complete your education – people prosper.
If you defer sex, marraige, … – people prosper.
If you do not abuse Drugs or Alcohol – people prosper.
And by prosper – not only are they wealthier – but they are healthier, and happier and more mentally healthy.
And the lesson that the “social workers” and lefties presenting this got ?
We need more of the very failed programs that have destroyed poor and minority families in the first place.
BTW Liberal Lion of the Senate Daniel Patrick Moynihan discovered all of the above in the 70’s and he was far from the first.
The “welfare” system that the left advocates has done more harm to the poor and minorities than anything else ever.
So your rebuttal to NII is “your right ?”
Get over the nostalgia for a past that never really existed, and certainly was far more miserable than you remember.
About a year ago I was providing meals at a homeless shelter, and we had more food than people to eat. Alone something that should suggest improvement.
Anyway I went out into the neighborhood – what was historically the worst in my city, looking for anyone who would come and eat rather than throw food away.
As an aside I have been serving food at homeless shelters for a long time, and nearly all the people who come to eat are NOT homeless, they are elderly or poor people looking to stretch their budgets.
But back to my walk through the worst neighborhood in my city.
I was struck by how much it had changed in 40 years.
When I was a kid these streets were full of litter, rusting out cars were everywhere, about 1/4 of all vehicles were up on blocks being worked on. The homes were in disrepair.
Today the SAME homes were in good repair, there was grass and gardens, there were more cars and none were on blocks or in poor condition, nearly all of them were older luxury cars, not junkers. The modern poor drive 10 year old BMW’s and mercedes – or 5 year old SUV’s.
Let me repeat this was the WORST neighborhood in my city.
We still have problems. There is still crime and drugs and violence – though far less violence and crime than when I was a kid. But most of the people in the worst part of the city live as well or nearly as well as I did when I first became and adult and as my parents did before that.
Go back and look at LBJ’s TV adds for the great society, for the war on poverty.
See if you can find ANYONE that lives like the poor did in the 60’s ?
Go read about Johnny Cash’s early life – that was incredible poverty. No one lives like that today.
People in many third world countries do not live like that today.
We are not done improving, we will never stop. But you could get the board out of your eyes and see the world and the past as it is.
That would make it far easier for you to grasp WHAT actually made things improve.
A clue – it has absolutely NOTHING to do with either charity or government.
Not only have the poor in the US improved dramatically in the past 50 years, but they have done so throughout the world.
In China the standard of living which had not risen since the “last emporer” went from $90/person/year to 11,000 that is 1.6 billion people raised from the bottom of the third world to the bottom of the first.
Similar changes in India would be the most dramatic improvement in the human condition in all of human history – except that China’s improvement was larger.
In first grade the nuns had us putting pennies and nickels into milk boxes for the starving millions in Bangeledesch.
Today the left absolutely whigs out because 100 Bangeledeschi’s are killed in a factory fire.
Do you understand NO ONE starves on this planet today from lack of food. We have more than enough to feed everyone. For the very few who are still dying of starvation the SOLE cause if political.
Not only that, but there is no nation – that but for political conflict is unable to feed its own people.
Even the most impoverished nation on the plant can feed all of its people if it can avoid wars and revolutions.
Are you serious? There is only one conservative leaning news channel that doesn’t spout, support, and subscribe to 100% liberal policies! While all the rest of network and cable news channels do! How else would it be possible that over 90% of MSM “news” is anti-Trump? Your facts are just wrong.
You point fingers as though the problem was one-sided. The leftwing is plenty divisive, too (calling people names instead of addressing their concerns for instance: ‘teabaggers’, deplorables, and every ‘-ist’ out there for no supportable reason)
Stop adding to the diviseness and consider taking the log out of your own eye. Clean your room, too.
Today the problem is very nearly one sided. That was not always so, but right wing extremism is NOT a credible threat to the country right now, while that of the left is absolutely.
The dark intellectual web of the right is purportedly people like Jordan Peterson, Johnathan Haidt, Bret Weinstein, Dave Rubin – these are purportedly the scholars of the modern alt right.
That can only be uttered with a straight face by someone who knows absolutely nothing about these people but what others have told them.
Richard Spensor is a virtual non-entity, the intellectual threat to the left is from classical liberals – aka libertarians.
While classical liberalism is “extreme” it is NOT extreme right wing.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in the pursuit of justice no virtue.
“Today the problem is very nearly one sided. That was not always so, but right wing extremism is NOT a credible threat to the country right now, while that of the left is absolutely.”
I mostly agree. I am concerned about the tribal behavior on both sides, as is JordanPeterson.
I would suggest following Prof Haidt also.
Some behavior is inherently human. Tribalism, and sanctification are inherent to human nature.
The left which pretends to be intellectual and scientific and devoid of religion is today massively tribal, and religious, and anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.
Look at the holy war that erupts when science produces reliable results that run at odds with progressive values. We are having a holy war with scientists being intellectually burned at the stake for merely willing to reference research demonstrating gender or race differences in IQ or ANYTHING!
While those differences are mostly small compared to differences between individuals they are real and STRONGLY statistically significant. And we need to think about that – both the implications and how to address it. As an example if there is a racial difference – WHY ? What do we do about it ?
We know as an example that IQ increases over time – WHY ? If there is a genetic component, there is also a suggestion that the environmental component – over the long run is heritable.
I hope you’re paid to write such gibberish.
You look arround today and you think the problem is intolerance on the right ?
You live in a bubble.
Are you a child ? Some of us have been arround long enough to live in a time where this country was far MORE heavily influenced by the right.
Today the left has taken the most oppresive acts of the right and doubled down.
You critique Some fox discussion of the EPA.
You seem to presume that all government is inherently self justifying.
What exactly is wrong with debating the merits of the EPA or any other facet of government ?
If the EPA has merit – you should be able to successfully defend it against the best counter arguments.
You can start with this one that EVERY govenrment agency and law should hold up to.
Can you demonstrate a single action, law, or regulation of the EPA that is had a demonstrable positive impact on a pre-existing trend ?
If you can not conclusively show that to be the case – then the answer is the EPA or any other agency that can not pass that test has no value.
The fact is that our lives are constantly improving, and that improvement compounds,
The more wealthy we become the higher on Maslows hierarchy of needs we climb.
AFTER we meet our needs for food and water, we seek shelter and cloths, and so on climbing the pyramid. Things the left wishes to pretend are rights today were out of the reach of the rockefellers a century ago.
Contra the left, both the destruction and the improvement of the environment have been constant efforts of humans. The first humans who lit fires in caves learned quickly that the price of heat was toxic air.
As we are wealthier we seek better cleaner conditions, and as we are wealthier we can afford them – no government necescary. Nor is this confined to the environment.
Everything that you want is paid for by what you produce. The environmental conditions the left seeks come at a cost. When the cost is low enough and/or our wealth is high enough, we chose them on our own without government.
Were you arround in the 20th century ? Micheal Dukakis was a “leftist”, Bill Clinton struggled to avoid being labeled a “leftist”.
Today most ever idiot right of center wants to move to greater socialism – the political system that murdered hundreds of million in the 20th century.
Virtually every democrat is FAR to the left of virtually every democrat 40 years ago.
Go actually listen to a John F. Kennedy speach he sounds like a supply side conservative today.
Classical liberals – aka libertarians have won ever single political debate of the past century at the factual level. But the left has taken over education providing us with generation after generation of increasingly whiney snowflake children who seem to think everything is a right. That they are entitled.
We continue to debate ideologies and programs that have been tried over and over – and failed repeatedly and catastrophically – and you have the nerve to pretend that Democratic centrism still exists ?
Get a clue, whatever the problems of the right – and there are many, almost 50 % of this country, people smart enough and well educated enough purportedly to know better, wish to impose by force on the rest of us stupid left wing garbage that we KNOW fails.
I trust a midwesterner with a high school degree and a job to have better judgement than an academic with a Phd.
I am not personally a big fan of Fox, and pay little attention to them.
But they exist because of the left has taken over the rest of the media.
They thrive because of the stupidity and idiocy of the left.
The “Right Wing Media” is not some plot to take over the world,.
It is all that protect us from the destruction the left seeks to impose upon us all by force.
“I trust a midwesterner with a high school degree and a job to have better judgement than an academic with a Phd.”
They do have better judgment. This is precisely why Trump won the election and Hillary only got a saving face talking point: “But but…I was the one who got 3 million more votes, you know, because I got votes from people who matter, not all those deplorables out there in fly over country…”
Straw-man argument, and assuming facts not in evidence. No one is trying to impose any “garbage” on anyone. Since you failed to specify what “garbage” is referenced, it’s safe to assume that Pravda Faux News failed to adequately issue your talking points on the matter.
This is to “hannity is my truth whisperer” dillie
I guess you learned logic from Alinsky.
A straw man fallacy requires pummeling an argument or position that is not the one you are arguing.
How exactly did I misrepresent your position ?
You continue on this anti-fox crusade – as if fox is the epitomy of all evil.
I have made it perfectly clear that I do not watch fox – or any other over the air news, and that I know very little of Hannity and have no special desire to do so.
It is therefore absolutely obvious that the only “straw man” fallacy is yours.
Beyond that we are arguing in blog comments – we are not engaged in a refresh of Lincoln-Douglas with each side making several hour arguments and counters and then repeating a few days later in another city.
There is no requirement for the scientific precision of an academic paper in my criticism..
Stated more simply – Garbage is an accurate concise statement of your arguments.
More is not necescary. Further it is little more than your own tactics used against you – with the exception that my generalization of your views is accurate.
If you wish to debate specific views of yours – raise them and I will be happy to debate whatever you want narrowly and specifically – though not likely in a way that you will like.
So I make an argument about the obvious changes that have occured over the past 40 years in the left, and your response is “Fox News ! Fox News ! Fox News !”
What observation about the past that I made is false ?
What observation of the present I have made is false ?
Inarguably the left and the right have BOTH shifted left over the past 40 years.
That is my argument, and it is well supported by facts,
As noted I do not follow Fox or Hannity – but I am pretty sure that neither Fox nor Hannity has ever made that argument
Your brain is so marrinated in hatred for Fox and Hannity you think that anything you do not like comes from that source.
And you wonder why I call your arguments garbage ?
To Peter Hill: Here’s the best example of your point (careless political language leading to normalizing extremism in our youngsters) I can think of in recent times:
I meant ‘careless’ with quotes…
This guy claims a homosexual affair with Barry Soetoro:
Personally, I say let every Trump supporter stand and speak freely and openly so that reasoned speech may show the error of their speech. Of course, the problem has been when both sides of this debate belittle free speech as in February 2016, during his campaign for president, Trump told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, “So I got a little notice. We have wonderful security guys. It said, ‘Mr. Trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience.’ So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell …. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”
And nothing happened our little snowflake. Yet the murdering of cops, burning of businesses and cars, destroying campus buildning and trying to intimidate conservative apeakers is ok with you, got it.
Trump did what Obama preached, he brought a gun to a knife fight.
Need a tissue?
Your response is bizarre. There are plenty of real world examples where trump has actually threatened the free speech of others. Though there are none where he has acted to forcefully supress the speach of others.
But you think that responding to those who throw tomatoes at others with force is suppression of speach ?
There might be some small debate over whether beating the crap out of tomato throwers is a proportionate response to violence, Regardless it is a response to violence not speach.
As to your main thesis – absolutely, let every one – Trump supporters, Bernie Bros, the whole enchelada speak and we can chose who is most sane, and reasonable.
Oh. Wait – We did exactly that in Nov. 2016. And we decided that Trump was the lessor evil.
Get a Clue – if Trump is an authoritarian (which he is obviously not) then he is the LESSOR authoritarian.
On election day we evaluated the candidates to determine who was the most dangerous.
We decided that Clinton was more dangerous than Trump.
I am not a Trump supporter, I did not vote for either, but given those as the only choices, the people made the right decision.
Next time bring a better candidate, a better argument, a better ideology.
Thanks for the awareness in the article. Obviously, we need constant reminders American institutions are being held hostage by the leftists.
It actually sickens me to the point of…no comment necessary. The administrator has demonstrated his/her bias and stupidity.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, no matter how ridiculous or bereft of factual support. Congratulations are in order, as mediocre loons, wackjobs, and gullible buffoons will surely take inspiration from your ability to “contribute” here.
This is to “I often just wing it and make up sh*t for the hell of it” kimmie
Marky Mark Mark – you are looking in the mirror. Great self-reflection. We appreciate the honesty.
“This is to “I often just wing it and make up sh*t for the hell of it” kimmie”
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
“The administrator has demonstrated his/her bias and stupidity.”
You forgot cowardice.
What a sad sad state of affairs on college campuses these days… now the students, who are now called “snowflakes” by some, and unfortunately the administration, feel “uncomfortable” because another student talked about the personal difficulty of dealing with the intolerant majority of liberal’s (fellow students, professors, and administrators) found on college campuses these days. Conservative leaning students are now being marginalized and forced to adopt and bend to these liberal policies, while the liberal left suppress and now threaten the very essence of what our country was founded on… FREE SPEECH! If free speech continues to be censored on college campuses, how then will these students ever be able to become free thinkers without “safe spaces” and regulation/suppression? The pedulum will someday swing back to center, but hopefully not before all of our freedoms of expression and liberties have been stripped away!
Kindly explain how the nonsensical and uninformed actions of some third-rate apparatchik at a school you don’t attend could cause “all of our freedoms of expression and liberties” to be stripped away?
This is to “what’s this 1st Amendment thingy about, anyway?” Jr
In isolation – not at all.
But look arround – the PC Snowflake left is fighting – with far too much success to impose this draconian garbage on all of us everywhere
And that is the most serious threat to our freedom – and our prosperity.
Progressivism is envy. It is the ideology that if I can not do better, everyone else must do badly.
I hate to be a speech bully but if my views hurt your feelings, You need them hurt, probably more often, I am the Vice President in charge of de-sensitizing the world, People, grow a spine…
This is a farcical article, right? It’s Catch-22 meets 1984.
Fight the close minded leftists at every turn. They are literally a joke.
The saddest thing about this that it is not news. The suppression of speech is widespread in modern progressive circles.
And people wonder why there is such a strong defense of the Second Amendment?
Comments are closed.