US Conservatives Concerned...

[Drake Tungsten]

As I pointed out, there was the protest by several groups against the University of South Carolina for asking students to read a book on Islam, carried out by conservatives.

It was at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and it wasn't a "protest", it was a lawsuit. No Christian groups marched on the UNC campus and started breaking ****. Like it or not, violent protest is mainly the realm of leftist groups. Just look at what's happening in Washington today.

[chequita guevara]

Lefties only get violent when attacked. By definition, that is self-defense.

[Sardaukar]

its the lefties who are most riotous when encountered with a viewpoint they dont agree with. Look at the reaction David Horowitz got when he was on his campus tour.

many college newspapers chose not to print his arguments against AA either.

[Drake Tungsten]

Lefties only get violent when attacked. By definition, that is self-defense.

What about all the anarchists who jack things up at every IMF meeting?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sardaukar
oh nonsense, its the lefties who are most riotous when encountered with a viewpoint. Look at the reaction David Horowitz got when he was on his campus tour.

many college newspapers chose not to print his arguments against AA either.

First of all sardaukar: As we said before, conservative don't like to be exposed to other points of view- hard then to protest.

Davd Horowitz got what he wanted- he likes getting that type of attention- in fact, that is what he craves: that way, he get to make the same argument you are making :"look at the intolerant liberals!'. He came to my university in that tour. sadly, those idiots in the left do bite when he goes on stage and incites the crowd. It is a terrible sight, since then those people in the corwd that went to listen to the man don't get to focus on his ussually tepid arguemtns. But lets not think of David Horowitz as a champion of free speech- I remember reading the little pamphlet he wrote, urging that Universities no longer teach Marx because he was evil... Horoqitz used to be one of those idiots that stand up during his speeches- and he sadly knows that type of shallow mind all too well.

It was at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and it wasn't a "protest", it was a lawsuit. No Christian groups marched on the UNC campus and started breaking ****. Like it or not, violent protest is mainly the realm of leftist groups. Just look at what's happening in Washington today.

First, thanks for the correction. Second, a lawsuit is a worse way of trying to stiffle free speech- since you are trying to bring the power of the state down on those that disagree with you- a far more chilling act than screaming like and idiot- and may we add, the authorities ussually crack down on those idiots, as they did in Washington.

[Ned]

GePap, Did you read Lincoln's article? There is no doubt that the left is censoring free speech on campus with the use of violence and other coercive means. PC is their main vehicle. I cannot help but recall the brown and black-shirted anti-communist Fascist thugs that wandered the steets of Germany and Italy that eventually brought the World so much misery and hate.

GePap, I take it you are in favor of freedom of speech. You should oppose, then, the coercive monopolization of speech on any US campus, whether by the right or by the left. All I hear you saying is that left is wholly innocent of the charge of Fascism. They are not innocent.

[Drake Tungsten]

Second, a lawsuit is a worse way of trying to stiffle free speech- since you are trying to bring the power of the state down on those that disagree with you- a far more chilling act than screaming like and idiot- and may we add, the authorities ussually crack down on those idiots, as they did in Washington.

As much as I dislike frivolous lawsuits, they're still a socially acceptable means of protest. Going out and breaking **** because you don't like something isn't. If you keep the protest peaceful, then go to it. I have no problem with non-violent protests. The recent trend towards violence by some leftisit groups worries me, however.

[Sardaukar]

First of all sardaukar: As we said before, conservative don't like to be exposed to other points of view

on what concrete basis can you make that assertion? Most conservatives now-a-days are happy with an open debate no more, no less. Sadly, conservatives have had the specter of Mccarthyism in their closet. But that should never justify a swing in the other direction .

I'm a history minor. There are whole classes devoted to flat-out assertions that the US is an imperialist state and must be scrutinized in a racial and gender-based context. i took one of these classes, and wasn't even allowed to initiate a debate on whether the US was actually an imperialist state to begin with! It was deemed "inappropriate" and "out of context" by my instructor.

Davd Horowitz got what he wanted- he likes getting that type of attention- in fact, that is what he craves: that way, he get to make the same argument you are making :"look at the intolerant liberals!'.

Horowitz did nothing more than tour campuses and present his viewpoint. The attention came to him, he didn't look for. and I want a link on your pamphlet, too

sorry had to edit this

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, Did you read Lincoln's article? There is no doubt that the left is censoring free speech on campus with the use of violence and other coercive means. PC is their main vehicle. I cannot help but recall the brown and black-shirted anti-communist Fascist thugs that wandered the steets of Germany and Italy that eventually brought the World so much misery and hate.

GePap, I take it you are in favor of freedom of speech. You should oppose, then, the coercive monopolization of speech on any US campus, whether by the right or by the left. All I hear you saying is that left is wholly innocent of the charge of Fascism. They are not innocent.

Let me start by warning about the charge of 'fascims': fascism is a ddeveloped political ideology, which in theory has nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech, though perhaps in practice. It is generally a very poor word to use in this context. If you want to use such a word, use authoritarian or dictatorial. They are still highly charged, but far more valid than 'fascist'.

Now, yes, I do support campus freedom of speech, and where i differ greatly from you is in what I see as the greater danger to freedom on speech. I don't think the left is cooercively monopolising speech because they lack the power to do so. Its all about power. Can conservative grtoups, in all US universities- get the approval of those in power to stage an activity to promote their views? The answer is yes. Now, what about the protestors? To me that is an issue of university discipline, not 'coercive' monopolizing of views. I would have no problem with Universities passing rules against protests designed to actively interfere with other's speech, since to me that is rude and denigrates the mission of the university.

Power in the university lies with the administration and with the faculty- not the students. To me, any act by those in power to limit other due to their political views is fundamentally far more dangerous than any actions by the powerless mob. In his post, Che was able to show liberals denyed employment based on their political beliefs. I have yet to see anyone show me the story of a conservative porfessor denyied a job due to their 'conservative' viewpoint. the example the Imran gave was of a conservative denyied a job becuase he held an opinion considered 'liberal' by many, not because of his beliefs in conservative economics, aproval of the president, so forth.

A violent individual protestor is wrong, but they do NOT endanger my freedom, academic or otherwise, as the non-violent acts on those in power to deny an outlet for views they dislike. A dozen annoying, loud, screaming radicals can't do the damge one quite school administrator can, to freedom of speech. Which is why lawsuits are more dangerous, becuase, again, it is trying to use the powers of the system to stiffle free speech.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sardaukar

I'm a history minor. There are whole classes devoted to flat-out assertions that the US is an imperialist state and must be scrutinized in a racial and gender-based context. i took one of these classes, and wasn't even allowed to initiate a debate on whether the US was actually an imperialist state to begin with! It was deemed "inappropriate" and "out of context" by my instructor.

Finally, a valid example of intellectual oppresion! I don't disagree with you at all that it was wrong for the porfessor not to allow you to make such an argument.

Horowitz did nothing more than tour campuses and present his viewpoint. The attention came to him, he didn't look for. and I want a link on your pamphlet, too

Horowitz, ahead of time, put out an ad with his views, which are controversial, then chooses certain universities where he knows he will get this type of reaction. That is his style, he began as a trouble making liberal, and has truned into a troube making conservative. H is a showboat. gain, it is sad that so many empty-headed protestors bite.

And since sardauker, you values intellectual freedom so, I can hardly see what ypou would want with a pamphlet calling for censorship. But if you are so open-minded that you want to read this, well, unfortunitelly, the last time I saw it was3 years ago, and my close-minded self didn't keep a copy.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have yet to see anyone show me the story of a conservative porfessor denyied a job due to their 'conservative' viewpoint.

I posted a thread here a while back about how Stanford denied an assistant football coach here at Nebraska their head coaching position because of his conservative Christian views on homosexuality. It's not a professor being denied a job, but still a university denying a person a job because their views conflicted with the predominant views of the largely liberal campus. It cuts both ways.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Lefties only get violent when attacked. By definition, that is self-defense.

What about all the anarchists who jack things up at every IMF meeting?

When less than one percent of the people in a movement do something, I think it's unfair to say "lefties do this or that" Even most anarchists don't start trouble, though there doesn seem to be a larger percentage of people within the anarchist movement with testosterone poisoning. (At a dedication of the Haymarket Martyr's Memorial about four years back they almost got their asses kicked by a bunch of Teamsters for trying to mess things up.)

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not saying that all leftists are violent. That's totally untrue. I'm just saying that most violent protestors seem to be leftist.

The only really violent protests I can think of that are perpetrated by the right are anti-abortion ones and even these rarely go beyond heckling. The right just doesn't have anything comparable to the violence that has been occuring at WTO and IMF meetings.

[Sardaukar]

Che was able to show liberals denyed employment based on their political beliefs. I have yet to see anyone show me the story of a conservative porfessor denyied a job due to their 'conservative' viewpoint.

http://www.issues-views.com/index.ph...3/article/2039

Horowitz, ahead of time, put out an ad with his views, which are controversial, then chooses certain universities where he knows he will get this type of reaction

We'll agree to disagree. Horowitz chose mostly large and prestigious unis to speak, which also happen to be predominantly liberal and invite mostly liberal speakers. i dont think even he expected the vehment reaction he got.

And since sardauker, you values intellectual freedom so, I can hardly see what ypou would want with a pamphlet calling for censorship.

only to know that he actually wrote it.

[chequita guevara]

The media doesn't cover most aborition/anti-abortion rallies. Trust me, pro-lifers can be very vicious. But they are well trained, and don't do it in front of cameras or when a police officer is looking (though sometimes they do get caught). Friends of mine have been punched. Several friends complained of being pinched hard (I know, small complain, but it's still personal violence).

The main reason why leftist demos tend to turn violent is because cops really don't like us, and they are far more willing to crack our heads than to crack the heads of people on the right. Well, lefties also have a tendency to fight back (which isn't really a smart thing to do, but it is necessary at times).

For example, at one demo during the Gulf War, cops would walk up and down the line, pointing at people and telling them they were next, then giving them a beat down. My friend was grabbed by a police officer. She's a small woman, and when he put his hand over her mouth and nose, she couldn't breathe, at all. So she bit him. For that she got a chunk of her long, beautiful hair ripped out of her head. Yeah, she bit a cop, but you have to breathe.

If six kids trash a Starbucks, is the proper repsonse to beat and arrest hundreds and use poison gas on thousands? Is it to attack unsuspecting neighborhoods? the day after the big demos in downtown Seattle, the police attacked the Capital Hill district--alterno/gay area-- of Seattle. There was no demo going on, no protests, but a lot of protesters were staying in the neighborhood. The police just closed off the area and started beating and arresting people.