Food for thought on American leftist “thought”

[BackAgain]

In no particular order, here is a little food for thought and maybe even discussion. I assume the board leftists will largely disagree. But I believe each of these items can be defended as accurate based on things we’ve seen and heard from the left in recent times:

• Orange man not bad; he ain’t perfect … but ….
• 
  white people aren’t bad either. Some are.
• 
  black lives DO matter. All innocent lives matter.
• 
  “income inequality” exists, but it isn’t an evil as the lefties pretend it is.
• 
  racism still exists, but that doesn’t mean “institutional racism” exists (or that to the extent it still lingers, it is accepted).
• 
  
• old fashioned “journalism” can’t be found in the main stream media anymore.
• 
  freedom of speech isn’t quaint; and saying things which “woke” leftists wish to silence is still perfectly ok.
• 
  “cancel culture” is an effort to deny freedom of speech and is thus antithetical to American values.
• 
  the left largely now takes positions at odds with their prior valid beliefs, such as: they now largely recoil in horror from the proposition that America should be a “color blind” society; and they oppose, to a large extent, “freedom of speech” even inside the former bastion of free thought and expression, colleges and universities.

 

[Donald H]

• 
  the left largely now takes positions at odds with their prior valid beliefs, such as: they now largely recoil in horror from the proposition that America should be a “color blind” society; and they oppose, to a large extent, “freedom of speech” even inside the former bastion of free thought and expression, colleges and universities.

I would be happy to discuss that point with you from an unbiased Canadian's POV. Let's start with you telling me what you mean with the first sentence?
How about stopping at 'their valid beliefs,...........', so we're only dealing with one issue?

 

[Otis Mayfield]

I'm fine with everything you say.


The day I figure out what trump truly was was after his inaugural speech and he kept saying he had a bigger inaugural crowd than Obama when clearly all the evidence showed that Obama's crowd was much, much larger.

At first I thought trump was joking. Who cares how big the crowd is, but then trump kept on and on about it.

How can someone be that petty, I thought. But it only got worse as his term continued.

And the trump term ended with trump saying the election was stolen from him when clearly it wasn't.

How could voters elect such a turd of a man?

 

[Donald H]

I'm fine with everything you say.


The day I figure out what trump truly was was after his inaugural speech and he kept saying he had a bigger inaugural crowd than Obama when clearly all the evidence showed that Obama's crowd was much, much larger.

But can you answer the question on whether he believed it or he just sent the message, confident it would be accepted. A mentally sane person would choose the latter. And same question on his claim of the election being stolen?

 

[g5000]

But can you answer the question on whether he believed it or he just sent the message, confident it would be accepted. A mentally sane person would choose the latter. And same question on his claim of the election being stolen?

Trump's fragile megalomaniacal ego cannot handle any truth which he finds offensive.

Russia interfered in our election and helped him get elected. He can't handle that fact.

Obama had a bigger crowed than he did. He can't handle that fact.

Biden won the election. He can't handle that fact.

Obama was born in the USA, and he can't handle that fact.

Covid is a real threat, and he could not handle that fact.

I do not know if Trump believes his own lies, but I suspect he does and that would make him seriously deluded and dangerous. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died unnecessarily because of his insane delusions.

Even worse, Trump has infected tens of millions with his insanity, and they are no longer able to discern the truth from fiction, and many of them continue to die to this day because of that.

 

[Donald H]

Trump's fragile megalomaniacal ego cannot handle any truth which he finds offensive.

Russia interfered in our election and helped him get elected. He can't handle that fact.

Obama had a bigger crowed than he did. He can't handle that fact.

Biden won the election. He can't handle that fact.

Obama was born in the USA, and he can't handle that fact.

Covid is a real threat, and he could not handle that fact.

I do not know if Trump believes his own lies, but I suspect he does and that would make him seriously deluded and dangerous. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died unnecessarily because of his insane delusions.

Even worse, Trump has infected tens of millions with his insanity, and they are no longer able to discern the truth from fiction, and many of them continue to die to this day because of that.

I hear you and I certainly believe Trump is evil, but I'm not totally convinced that he believes all of that in his head.

So for instance, there's no doubt that Obama had a much bigger crowd but was Trump able to make his crowd bigger in the heads of his supporters? That's not an easy question to answer. But it might draw out a few of his supporters on this board to answer with their opnions. And then, should they be believed.

But thanks for your opinion at least!

 

[BackAgain]

I would be happy to discuss that point with you from an unbiased Canadian's POV. Let's start with you telling me what you mean with the first sentence?
How about stopping at 'their valid beliefs,...........', so we're only dealing with one issue?

Well, you seem to be addressing the final bullet point. I have two examples of them now being at odds with their prior beliefs. I am asserting that their prior beliefs (the ones they used to espouse) were valid.

We can start there. A. A color blind society. And B. Free speech

A. Inasmuch as you are a Canadian, you may not be aware of the fact that it was an old truism in American “liberal” political philosophy that American society had been racist (and still was) and that the “cure” for this would involve making us a color blind society. However, nowadays, I have discovered that this is largely antithetical to their belief system. I’ve had liberals recoils in horror when I’ve made a suggestion endorsing a color blind society. The very suggestion is now often viewed as itself being racist. ??? Yep. Topsey Turvey.

B. The former American “liberal” position was that no topic should be considered off limits. The virtue of full and open discourse would be that it would illuminate the errors of thinking in one side of a debate. Expose the wrong-thinkers to the bright light of logic and reason, and their bogus premises and invalid syllogisms could be demonstrated and refuted. This was a precept of the right of colleges and college students to engage in discussion on ANY topic. However, this is no longer true. Nowadays we have “free speech zones” on campuses so as not to impose any offensive thinking on delicate minds. College students have taken to opposing invitations to speakers with whom they disagree. You know: fuck free speech. Toss in a goodly measure of cancel culture to try to shut down any venue for the opposing side to ever be heard.

I don’t understand the balance of your reply, Donnie, so I’ll limit my effort to respond to the above for now.

 

[g5000]

Wokism is going to be the major contributing factor to the Democratic Party's losses.

I know it is anecdotal, but I have many friends who are fed up with this wokism bullshit and are walking away from the Democrats. They aren't heading toward Trump's cult, but all it takes these days to lose an election is to turn off your own voters enough that they don't show up at the polls on election day.

 

[Donald H]

A. Inasmuch as you are a Canadian, you may not be aware of the fact that it was an old truism in American “liberal” political philosophy that American society had been racist (and still was) and that the “cure” for this would involve making us a color blind society. However, nowadays, I have discovered that this is largely antithetical to their belief system. I’ve had liberals recoils in horror when I’ve made a suggestion endorsing a color blind society. The very suggestion is now often viewed as itself being racist. ??? Yep. Topsey Turvey.

Yes, I am aware. And I would have no doubt that 'some' liberals, perhaps even most, would recoil at the suggestion. I've already said several times on this board that racism is big in the D party but they pretend because they need the black vote.
I don't get your final point in that but you may want to explain further why 'colour blind' is itself racist.

B. The former American “liberal” position was that no topic should be considered off limits. The virtue of full and open discourse would be that it would illuminate the errors of thinking in one side of a debate.

o.k.

Expose the wrong-thinkers to the bright light of logic and reason, and their bogus premises and invalid syllogisms could be demonstrated and refuted.

I don't relate to that without examples, if you care to?

This was a precept of the right of colleges and college students to engage in discussion on ANY topic. However, this is no longer true. Nowadays we have “free speech zones” on campuses so as not to impose any offensive thinking on delicate minds. College students have taken to opposing invitations to speakers with whom they disagree. You know: fuck free speech. Toss in a goodly measure of cancel culture to try to shut down any venue for the opposing side to ever be heard.

I wouldn't doubt that college students, as in your example, would be opposed to a speaker with a message that is contrary to their politics.
I would only suggest that the majority decision of the body that chooses speakers would have the final say. This would be true for any controlling body on both sides.

That topic might apply to the media too and perhaps that would be an easier question to deal with than a university.

Most of the media is biased toward the left. I'll leave it there until you tell me whether to continue with the college or the media. I just find that it's basically the same issue.

I don’t understand the balance of your reply, Donnie, so I’ll limit my effort to respond to the above for now.

If there's something you don't understand then just ask. You'll get an honest reply.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, I am aware. And I would have no doubt that 'some' liberals, perhaps even most, would recoil at the suggestion. I've already said several times on this board that racism is big in the D party but they pretend because they need the black vote.
I don't get your final point in that but you may want to explain further why 'colour blind' is itself racist.

o.k.

I don't relate to that without examples, if you care to?

I wouldn't doubt that college students, as in your example, would be opposed to a speaker with a message that is contrary to their politics.
I would only suggest that the majority decision of the body that chooses speakers would have the final say. This would be true for any controlling body on both sides.

That topic might apply to the media too and perhaps that would be an easier question to deal with than a university.

Most of the media is biased toward the left. I'll leave it there until you tell me whether to continue with the college or the media. I just find that it's basically the same issue.

If there's something you don't understand then just ask. You'll get an honest reply.

Why would I want to explain why color blind is racist? I’m not the one who says it is.

I don’t know why you need examples. If some Dumbocrap member of the KKK is an avowed racist but is willing to discuss his alleged “reasons” for being a racist and is willing to listen perhaps to why his opponents think that he is wrong, his imbecile premises and illogical syllogisms can get exposed. If he’s not bright enough to follow along, maybe the discussion will at least show others the errors of his way of thinking. This isn’t exactly new thinking. It’s really the underlying basis for why we have long believed in free speech.

Colleges have student governments and speakers’ bureaus. These are the folks who have invited people to come offer talks on campuses. There are many examples of these talks getting shut-down by college protestors (including some involving a threat of possible violence). Free speech isn’t supposed to be something subject to “majority rules.” In fact, quite the opposite is true. It takes a modern version of American “liberal” to oppose free speech so that nobody can hear that differing opinion.

So. Let me just out a question to you. In your non USA opinion, is it appropriate for a particular component of the student body to actively undermine or scuttle the right of other students to listen to an invited public speaker? (Because, I assume you know, the right to freedom of speech is more than just the right to speak. It is also the right of others to listen.)

 

[Donald H]

Why would I want to explain why color blind is racist? I’m not the one who says it is.

I don’t know why you need examples. If some Dumbocrap member of the KKK is an avowed racist but is willing to discuss his alleged “reasons” for being a racist and is willing to listen perhaps to why his opponents think that he is wrong, his imbecile premises and illogical syllogisms can get exposed. If he’s not bright enough to follow along, maybe the discussion will at least show others the errors of his way of thinking. This isn’t exactly new thinking. It’s really the underlying basis for why we have long believed in free speech.

Colleges have student governments and speakers’ bureaus. These are the folks who have invited people to come offer talks on campuses. There are many examples of these talks getting shut-down by college protestors (including some involving a threat of possible violence). Free speech isn’t supposed to be something subject to “majority rules.” In fact, quite the opposite is true. It takes a modern version of American “liberal” to oppose free speech so that nobody can hear that differing opinion.

I'll overlook that ranting and rage this time because I find it in my interest to answer to what follows.

So. Let me just out a question to you. In your non USA opinion, is it appropriate for a particular component of the student body to actively undermine or scuttle the right of other students to listen to an invited public speaker?

The reality of the situation or any similar situation is that it does happen and it will continue to happen in the universities or the union halls or the board meeting of the large corporations. Should it happen? I would offer a qualified 'no',. Qualified on the basis of freedom of speech and the majority's right to maintain control over what they deem to be acceptable speech.
Just remember that I said, No.

And now you can decide on whether we have a discussion or not. I'm been more than fair with you but you have to maintain some civility too.

I'll only suggest that you can perhaps find some agreement on your logical beliefs and talking points with me. That's because I'm neither D or R biased. If you can find someone else that serves that purpose better for you then 'catch ya later'.

(Because, I assume you know, the right to freedom of speech is more than just the right to speak. It is also the right of others to listen.)

Yeah, I do and I understand freedoms and rights very well. I'm a Canadian who can be the proud holder of freedoms and rights that is comparable or better than any other country in the world.

 

[BackAgain]

I'll overlook that ranting and rage this time because I find it in my interest to answer to what follows.

The reality of the situation or any similar situation is that it does happen and it will continue to happen in the universities or the union halls or the board meeting of the large corporations. Should it happen? I would offer a qualified 'no',. Qualified on the basis of freedom of speech and the majority's right to maintain control over what they deem to be acceptable speech.
Just remember that I said, No.

And now you can decide on whether we have a discussion or not. I'm been more than fair with you but you have to maintain some civility too.

I'll only suggest that you can perhaps find some agreement on your logical beliefs and talking points with me. That's because I'm neither D or R biased. If you can find someone else that serves that purpose better for you then 'catch ya later'.

Yeah, I do and I understand freedoms and rights very well. I'm a Canadian who can be the proud holder of freedoms and rights that is comparable or better than any other country in the world.

Well. Look. You have been passably civil. Whether or not you believe we can’t have a discussion because I make fun of the Dumbocraps is up to you. Not clear why a Canadian would care that I mock an American political party though.

I will remember that you said “no.” We have a start of an agreement. It is not right (nor is it even acceptable) for a group of individuals on a college campus to shut down the right of free speech — which entails, as it does, the denial of the right of any audience to hear.

Where we seemingly part company is when you continue to assert that it is somehow less offensive (or less unacceptable) if the “majority” is the portion shutting down free debate — especially on a college campus.

I need to put aside for the moment that it is not technically a First Amendment violation since it isn’t the government doing the censorship. My contention is that it is still wrong. Philosophically and morally wrong. The right of free speech should never be subject to the tyranny of a majority.

(Side note which might serve to illustrate the point: Once upon a time, I was a proud member of the ACLU. That group still firmly stands for free speech. While I find many of their positions in other things to be absurd, I respect their determined defense of free speech. They even supported the 1st Amendment right of a filthy scumbag Nazi organization to “march” in Skokie, Illinois a couple of decades ago. Skokie was selected by that Nazi group of shitheads precisely because Skokie had a fair number of Jewsish people who were holocaust survivors. Hard to find another community who would be more offended by a Nazi march. I detested the fucking Nazis for selecting that community at all, especially for that reason. But I still reluctantly admire the willingness of the ACLU to support the 1st Amendment.)