Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@JaySon said:
I like to hear both sides. But I don't want to catch a fist.
I think both sides are imperfectly human. Though I lean toward Libertarian ideals.
Meaning... You can live however you want as long as you don't harm anyone else.
To threaten with violence a speaker with a different point of view is a definite no no.
Personally, I think that ignoring and/or giving a platform to fascists and their brand of bigotry is dangerous because it just allows it to fester and spread and potentially gain popular support, as it did in Germany and Italy during the early-mid 20th century and is currently happening in places like Greece with groups like Golden Dawn, France with Le Pen and the National Front, and the US with the rise of the alt-right. Rather than simply ignoring them, I think it's better to show up, confront them, and scare them back under whatever rock they crawled out from.
Shutting people up and/or punching them in the face is not a movement of "tolerance" and "peace", and reaffirms that no matter how much those feelgood buzzwords are floating around, they are just words.
Part of the "insanity" being witnessed here in the States is coming not from a particular ideology, but a particular knee-jerk reaction toward others with a wholly different view. An over-compensation of sorts that meets hateful rhetoric with hateful rhetoric. The hypocrisy is in full swing on both ends of the political spectrum here in the States.
Some who identify themselves with the so-called "tolerant left" here have been supporting "punching fascists in the face." Sorry, but the "tolerance" schtick is now void.
Everyone is in their ideological cul-de-sac, and some of us are waiting for the storm to pass.
It's a good reminder for me to read some of Thich Nhat Hanh's writings in Vietnam, where he refused to take sides between the N Vietnamese and Americans/S Vietnamese.
@person said:
I hadn't really thought of it until now @Nele, but I have no doubt that a vocal segment of the far right want to destroy and eliminate liberal institutions. It's scary to imagine a world where they succeed. My hope is that, like @karasti said much of his support came from those who wouldn't support that kind of thing and were only hoping for better job prospects.
The very thing that should not be done in response to that segment is betraying the very principles they oppose. Namely, free speech and due process.
One thing the framers of liberal democracy definitely got right was the idea that the oppressed can easily become the oppressor under the right circumstances. Which is expressed in the idea of the "tyranny of the majority."
Giving a voice to all, no matter what they espouse, forces competition of ideas on their merits. It's how to move beyond primitive instincts of just shutting people up through force.
3
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Giving a voice to all, no matter what they espouse, forces competition of ideas on their merits. It's how to move beyond primitive instincts of just shutting people up through force.
Except that the latest election seems to show that half the electorate does not seem interested in the competition of ideas, but votes on the basis of the candidate's haircut, what they see in their own online media-bubble, or on blind loyalty to a party.
The concept of competition of ideas on their merits presupposes balanced and sane media coverage, sensible consumption of the media by the public, and a reasonably intelligent mind that is willing to switch sides based on the facts. None of those seem to be present.
The new age of media allows anyone to simply reside in their own cul-de-sac, gated information community echo bubble. Believing what they hear that is ricocheting back and forth repeatedly across the cul-de-sac to be the absolute, undeniable truth. When everyone is listening to their own echoes, no one is listening to each other. Speaking of Thich Naht Hahn, his notion of "deep listening" (a corollary of Right Speech) is ever more important. Easier said than done in today's noisy overbearing mediascape, but essential.
-I remember that thread. In my opinion, to a degree, the Trump election was a response to the PC movement. As an aside, I believe public "safe zones" are absurd in general and have no place on college campuses...
It is pretty hard to know the truth of the things people are basing their ideologies on. But some foundational truths should be in place, though we seem to have lost them entirely. The right who support Trump are so trusting of him that they truly believe that provable facts are 'fake news' because Trump and Spicer said so. There is no exchange of ideas because they won't even listen to actual provable facts, nevermind more abstract things such as ideas. Including to the point that they now believe half of our entire court system is fake and wrong and bad, even though they were put in place by conservative presidents. To the point that absolutely anything they disagree with, they want to do away with without allowing our constitutional laws to play out and the extremely important checks and balances that were put in place.
I am fine with opposing views. We can talk about the different ways we might manage health care, or texting and driving laws, or even abortion. We can talk about the best way to educate children and the best ways to help people who need it. But treating people horribly is not up for debate in my world. That is not a "view" and tolerance does not apply. I'm happy to debate any issue with anyone, even if we disagree mightily. But if a person comes to me saying "well, maybe you should just die if you need help" then we're done. That is not a "view" that I am going to argue. And yes, i saw someone say that exact thing to a diabetic child just the other day. An adult. Did I punch them in the face? Of course not. Am I going to participate in a lovely exchange of ideas with them? No. Because an exchange of ideas requires an open mind and I honestly am not open to people who are hopeful that others will simply die so they don't have to deal with them.
2
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
People talking about how to bridge the political divide is the most sane thing to me atm.
@Nele said:
At University of CO at Boulder, the protests were peaceful when Milo came to town. But the next day I heard a conservative radio announcer, who attended the event, say he really, really wanted one of the "lefties" to hit him, but it didn't happen. Really. This leads to a larger idea that's floating around out there: this Milo is basically an agitator, the most recent visible edge of a group of conservatives that want to see colleges and universities lose Federal funding due to their freethinking (i.e. intrinsically liberal) nature. And hey presto, the Donald is already threatening such. There really seems to be no limit to the widening cesspool of American politics.
Did you ever think you'd see the day when half of the American voting population have disdain for a college education?
Yes, I find that alarming. Many are convinced that college educations are mostly indoctrination by a mysterious "Left". Even when you point out that most college courses are science, arts, literature, linguistics and languages, anthropology, archaeology and other fields that have no relation to politics, not to mention fields like Russia and E European Studies and China Studies, that are the opposite of a leftist agenda, they dismiss all such rational and fact-based info. What do these people do about their kids? Do they all force their kids into some kind of conservative Holy Roller universities, or outright prohibit their kids from getting higher education? I don't understand it.
Milo admits to being an agitator and an internet troll/provocateur. I have to question why on Earth students and apparently at least one faculty member, chose a speaker like that. There are so many better potential choices to represent and explain a conservative agenda. Why choose someone who's a bully and professional provocateur? That doesn't sound appropriate to academia. Does anyone have any insight about the selection process in this case? I heard it was a conservative student group, but that doesn't explain why they'd choose such an inflammatory speaker.
@JaySon said:
I like to hear both sides. But I don't want to catch a fist.
I think both sides are imperfectly human. Though I lean toward Libertarian ideals.
Meaning... You can live however you want as long as you don't harm anyone else.
To threaten with violence a speaker with a different point of view is a definite no no.
Personally, I think that ignoring and/or giving a platform to fascists and their brand of bigotry is dangerous because it just allows it to fester and spread and potentially gain popular support, as it did in Germany and Italy during the early-mid 20th century and is currently happening in places like Greece with groups like Golden Dawn, France with Le Pen and the National Front, and the US with the rise of the alt-right. Rather than simply ignoring them, I think it's better to show up, confront them, and scare them back under whatever rock they crawled out from.
Shutting people up and/or punching them in the face is not a movement of "tolerance" and "peace", and reaffirms that no matter how much those feelgood buzzwords are floating around, they are just words.
Part of the "insanity" being witnessed here in the States is coming not from a particular ideology, but a particular knee-jerk reaction toward others with a wholly different view. An over-compensation of sorts that meets hateful rhetoric with hateful rhetoric. The hypocrisy is in full swing on both ends of the political spectrum here in the States.
Some who identify themselves with the so-called "tolerant left" here have been supporting "punching fascists in the face." Sorry, but the "tolerance" schtick is now void.
Everyone is in their ideological cul-de-sac, and some of us are waiting for the storm to pass.
It's a good reminder for me to read some of Thich Nhat Hanh's writings in Vietnam, where he refused to take sides between the N Vietnamese and Americans/S Vietnamese.
I never said I was tolerant of nazis (or things like racism, sexism, ethnic cleansing, etc.), because I'm not.
@Dakini He has been chosen to speak at many, many colleges. Usually by republican/conservative groups. Most likely because they know he'll draw a large enough crowd to make the security etc costs worth it. My son goes to college in a very red state (North Dakota) and his visit to my son's campus was also canceled due to increased security costs because of threats. I think probably some of them do it to "prove" how much they support free speech as well.
Um....Strange bedfellows ...It's also possible they choose him because he represents the homophobic self hating gay man & the anti-Semitic self hating Jewish man (can't get a packaged deal any better than this, to promote one's warped ideology ) .... What better way for the far right to say "Here ...What did we tell you about gays and Jewish people...here's proof right from the horse's mouth" ....So of course they are more than willing to promote this kind of free speech...
But in the long run... who knows what really goes on in the warped mind...
@JaySon said:
I like to hear both sides. But I don't want to catch a fist.
I think both sides are imperfectly human. Though I lean toward Libertarian ideals.
Meaning... You can live however you want as long as you don't harm anyone else.
To threaten with violence a speaker with a different point of view is a definite no no.
Personally, I think that ignoring and/or giving a platform to fascists and their brand of bigotry is dangerous because it just allows it to fester and spread and potentially gain popular support, as it did in Germany and Italy during the early-mid 20th century and is currently happening in places like Greece with groups like Golden Dawn, France with Le Pen and the National Front, and the US with the rise of the alt-right. Rather than simply ignoring them, I think it's better to show up, confront them, and scare them back under whatever rock they crawled out from.
Shutting people up and/or punching them in the face is not a movement of "tolerance" and "peace", and reaffirms that no matter how much those feelgood buzzwords are floating around, they are just words.
Part of the "insanity" being witnessed here in the States is coming not from a particular ideology, but a particular knee-jerk reaction toward others with a wholly different view. An over-compensation of sorts that meets hateful rhetoric with hateful rhetoric. The hypocrisy is in full swing on both ends of the political spectrum here in the States.
Some who identify themselves with the so-called "tolerant left" here have been supporting "punching fascists in the face." Sorry, but the "tolerance" schtick is now void.
Everyone is in their ideological cul-de-sac, and some of us are waiting for the storm to pass.
It's a good reminder for me to read some of Thich Nhat Hanh's writings in Vietnam, where he refused to take sides between the N Vietnamese and Americans/S Vietnamese.
I never said I was tolerant of nazis (or things like racism, sexism, ethnic cleansing, etc.), because I'm not.
I apologize if I gave the impression that I did convey that, because that wasn't my intention.
So it turns out even Breitbart and conservatives have limits to their "free speech" idea, as now Milo is out his book deal and his job (which he quit). Funny how the line is drawn at comments about youth and sex but not blacks, gays or anyone else. To me, that just looks like they are still fine with spewing hatred of certain groups of people as free speech but draw the line at kids. Everyone's "free speech" has limits.
Personally, I think that ignoring and/or giving a platform to fascists and their brand of bigotry is dangerous because it just allows it to fester and spread and potentially gain popular support, as it did in Germany and Italy during the early-mid 20th century and is currently happening in places like Greece with groups like Golden Dawn, France with Le Pen and the National Front, and the US with the rise of the alt-right. Rather than simply ignoring them, I think it's better to show up, confront them, and scare them back under whatever rock they crawled out from.
I don't hold the Constitution or the First Amendment sacrosanct.
This is a contradiction; a form of Totalitarianism.
To use an extreme example, take the Nazi's racist ideology, which made being Jewish dangerous and ultimately a death sentence in Germany: Should their expression of anti-Semitism be defended on free speech grounds, or would it better (and more moral) to oppose and actively attempt to suppress such ideas? Should Mein Kampf and Hitler's hate speech against the Jews et al. be defended, or should it, too, be opposed and suppressed? Same with present-day fascists. Aren't fascist rallies and actions forms of intimidation for gays, minorities, etc., whom they verbal and sometime physically threaten?
Was the ideology really "racist"? Was the old Nazi complaining about the colour of Jewish skin & hair?
The Jewish Rabbi in this video read Mein Kampf and explained it openly & accurately. The Jewish Rabbi in the video said Mein Kampf was not "racist".
Personally, I think that ignoring and/or giving a platform to fascists and their brand of bigotry is dangerous because it just allows it to fester and spread and potentially gain popular support, as it did in Germany and Italy during the early-mid 20th century and is currently happening in places like Greece with groups like Golden Dawn, France with Le Pen and the National Front, and the US with the rise of the alt-right. Rather than simply ignoring them, I think it's better to show up, confront them, and scare them back under whatever rock they crawled out from.
I don't hold the Constitution or the First Amendment sacrosanct.
This is a contradiction; a form of Totalitarianism.
To use an extreme example, take the Nazi's racist ideology, which made being Jewish dangerous and ultimately a death sentence in Germany: Should their expression of anti-Semitism be defended on free speech grounds, or would it better (and more moral) to oppose and actively attempt to suppress such ideas? Should Mein Kampf and Hitler's hate speech against the Jews et al. be defended, or should it, too, be opposed and suppressed? Same with present-day fascists. Aren't fascist rallies and actions forms of intimidation for gays, minorities, etc., whom they verbal and sometime physically threaten?
Was the ideology really "racist"? Was the old Nazi complaining about the colour of Jewish skin & hair?
The Jewish Rabbi in this video read Mein Kampf and explained it openly & accurately. The Jewish Rabbi in the video said Mein Kampf was not "racist".
I'm not sure you understand what racism means. Subsets of society can be perceived as a separate racial groups and discriminated against without having radically different skin colour. In the US, for example, there was racism against Irish immigrants even though Irish immigrants are white. Rather than skin colour, there was a host of other stereotypes and prejudices (poverty, culture, religion, etc.) associated with the Irish that were utilized in their relative oppression.
This conversation might be of interest. It is an hour long and deals with the changes that are happening politically and globally. Of particular interest might be the section describing sentience and suffering.
I found it very useful and feel well able to adapt and find personal solutions. More societal changes might be harder to envisage and implement.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@lobster said:
This conversation might be of interest. It is an hour long and deals with the changes that are happening politically and globally. Of particular interest might be the section describing sentience and suffering.
I found it very useful and feel well able to adapt and find personal solutions. More societal changes might be harder to envisage and implement.
I've recently found Yuval Noah Harari and love what he has to say, he's brilliant.
Comments
Shutting people up and/or punching them in the face is not a movement of "tolerance" and "peace", and reaffirms that no matter how much those feelgood buzzwords are floating around, they are just words.
Part of the "insanity" being witnessed here in the States is coming not from a particular ideology, but a particular knee-jerk reaction toward others with a wholly different view. An over-compensation of sorts that meets hateful rhetoric with hateful rhetoric. The hypocrisy is in full swing on both ends of the political spectrum here in the States.
Some who identify themselves with the so-called "tolerant left" here have been supporting "punching fascists in the face." Sorry, but the "tolerance" schtick is now void.
Everyone is in their ideological cul-de-sac, and some of us are waiting for the storm to pass.
It's a good reminder for me to read some of Thich Nhat Hanh's writings in Vietnam, where he refused to take sides between the N Vietnamese and Americans/S Vietnamese.
The very thing that should not be done in response to that segment is betraying the very principles they oppose. Namely, free speech and due process.
One thing the framers of liberal democracy definitely got right was the idea that the oppressed can easily become the oppressor under the right circumstances. Which is expressed in the idea of the "tyranny of the majority."
Giving a voice to all, no matter what they espouse, forces competition of ideas on their merits. It's how to move beyond primitive instincts of just shutting people up through force.
Except that the latest election seems to show that half the electorate does not seem interested in the competition of ideas, but votes on the basis of the candidate's haircut, what they see in their own online media-bubble, or on blind loyalty to a party.
The concept of competition of ideas on their merits presupposes balanced and sane media coverage, sensible consumption of the media by the public, and a reasonably intelligent mind that is willing to switch sides based on the facts. None of those seem to be present.
The new age of media allows anyone to simply reside in their own cul-de-sac, gated information community echo bubble. Believing what they hear that is ricocheting back and forth repeatedly across the cul-de-sac to be the absolute, undeniable truth. When everyone is listening to their own echoes, no one is listening to each other. Speaking of Thich Naht Hahn, his notion of "deep listening" (a corollary of Right Speech) is ever more important. Easier said than done in today's noisy overbearing mediascape, but essential.
-I remember that thread. In my opinion, to a degree, the Trump election was a response to the PC movement. As an aside, I believe public "safe zones" are absurd in general and have no place on college campuses...
It is pretty hard to know the truth of the things people are basing their ideologies on. But some foundational truths should be in place, though we seem to have lost them entirely. The right who support Trump are so trusting of him that they truly believe that provable facts are 'fake news' because Trump and Spicer said so. There is no exchange of ideas because they won't even listen to actual provable facts, nevermind more abstract things such as ideas. Including to the point that they now believe half of our entire court system is fake and wrong and bad, even though they were put in place by conservative presidents. To the point that absolutely anything they disagree with, they want to do away with without allowing our constitutional laws to play out and the extremely important checks and balances that were put in place.
I am fine with opposing views. We can talk about the different ways we might manage health care, or texting and driving laws, or even abortion. We can talk about the best way to educate children and the best ways to help people who need it. But treating people horribly is not up for debate in my world. That is not a "view" and tolerance does not apply. I'm happy to debate any issue with anyone, even if we disagree mightily. But if a person comes to me saying "well, maybe you should just die if you need help" then we're done. That is not a "view" that I am going to argue. And yes, i saw someone say that exact thing to a diabetic child just the other day. An adult. Did I punch them in the face? Of course not. Am I going to participate in a lovely exchange of ideas with them? No. Because an exchange of ideas requires an open mind and I honestly am not open to people who are hopeful that others will simply die so they don't have to deal with them.
People talking about how to bridge the political divide is the most sane thing to me atm.
Yes, I find that alarming. Many are convinced that college educations are mostly indoctrination by a mysterious "Left". Even when you point out that most college courses are science, arts, literature, linguistics and languages, anthropology, archaeology and other fields that have no relation to politics, not to mention fields like Russia and E European Studies and China Studies, that are the opposite of a leftist agenda, they dismiss all such rational and fact-based info. What do these people do about their kids? Do they all force their kids into some kind of conservative Holy Roller universities, or outright prohibit their kids from getting higher education? I don't understand it.
Milo admits to being an agitator and an internet troll/provocateur. I have to question why on Earth students and apparently at least one faculty member, chose a speaker like that. There are so many better potential choices to represent and explain a conservative agenda. Why choose someone who's a bully and professional provocateur? That doesn't sound appropriate to academia. Does anyone have any insight about the selection process in this case? I heard it was a conservative student group, but that doesn't explain why they'd choose such an inflammatory speaker.
I never said I was tolerant of nazis (or things like racism, sexism, ethnic cleansing, etc.), because I'm not.
@Dakini He has been chosen to speak at many, many colleges. Usually by republican/conservative groups. Most likely because they know he'll draw a large enough crowd to make the security etc costs worth it. My son goes to college in a very red state (North Dakota) and his visit to my son's campus was also canceled due to increased security costs because of threats. I think probably some of them do it to "prove" how much they support free speech as well.
Um....Strange bedfellows ...It's also possible they choose him because he represents the homophobic self hating gay man & the anti-Semitic self hating Jewish man (can't get a packaged deal any better than this, to promote one's warped ideology ) .... What better way for the far right to say "Here ...What did we tell you about gays and Jewish people...here's proof right from the horse's mouth" ....So of course they are more than willing to promote this kind of free speech...
But in the long run... who knows what really goes on in the warped mind...
I apologize if I gave the impression that I did convey that, because that wasn't my intention.
As we know certain ideas in wrathful practice are considered very simple when engaging conventional wrathful yidams ...
However even the reasonbly sane are easily tipped over the edge when using family members, Trump or their psychiatrist as objects of dharma practice ...
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/24672/trump-nirvana#latest
So it turns out even Breitbart and conservatives have limits to their "free speech" idea, as now Milo is out his book deal and his job (which he quit). Funny how the line is drawn at comments about youth and sex but not blacks, gays or anyone else. To me, that just looks like they are still fine with spewing hatred of certain groups of people as free speech but draw the line at kids. Everyone's "free speech" has limits.
This is a contradiction; a form of Totalitarianism.
Was the ideology really "racist"? Was the old Nazi complaining about the colour of Jewish skin & hair?
The Jewish Rabbi in this video read Mein Kampf and explained it openly & accurately. The Jewish Rabbi in the video said Mein Kampf was not "racist".
I'm not sure you understand what racism means. Subsets of society can be perceived as a separate racial groups and discriminated against without having radically different skin colour. In the US, for example, there was racism against Irish immigrants even though Irish immigrants are white. Rather than skin colour, there was a host of other stereotypes and prejudices (poverty, culture, religion, etc.) associated with the Irish that were utilized in their relative oppression.
This conversation might be of interest. It is an hour long and deals with the changes that are happening politically and globally. Of particular interest might be the section describing sentience and suffering.
I found it very useful and feel well able to adapt and find personal solutions. More societal changes might be harder to envisage and implement.
I've recently found Yuval Noah Harari and love what he has to say, he's brilliant.