0
0

[–] Lucumon ago 

An admittedly 'radical left' paper making these comments about liberals? Nice.

1
0

[–] Drenki 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Has anyone else heard a different explanation of what McCarthyism was really about?

I heard it argued that it wasn't about finding "communists" so much as those engaging in "un-American activities".

What qualified as an "un-American activities?" People who were influencing the government outside of the electoral process.

I believe you could be a member of the communist party and it was just another political party. The concern was that these people were willing to step beyond the influence their demographic would normally have by doing things that were actually illegal or treasonous. Not the BS kind of treason charge thrown at someone like Snowden.

0
0

[–] KhuanZi ago 

McCarthyism was about purging the government, and later Hollywood, of anyone who held the wrong opinions.

I heard it argued that it wasn't about finding "communists" so much as those engaging in "un-American activities".

Yes, that's what McCarthy said it was about. He was a fascist liar though. He was going after communists.

I believe you could be a member of the communist party and it was just another political party.

You could be a member of the communist party, but if you were you would be blacklisted from government jobs.

2
-1

[–] KhuanZi 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

And no longer are the primary blacklisters the capitalists (as was the case in the 1950s) or the pro-Israel lobby (as it has been for the past few decades).

Which is why Salaita got fired after pressure from the pro-Israel lobby. Not to mention all of the speakers who have been refused because of said lobby.

Over the past few years I’ve talked to several university instructors (especially adjuncts) who’ve told me they’re afraid of their students. Not physically, as in their students killing them, but rather they fear that uttering any opinion that any of their students—either conservative or liberal: it swings both ways—find objectionable will lead to that student complaining to the administration, after which the instructor may lose her or his classes, in effect be fired.

So they're scared of a shitty administration that doesn't stand up for teachers? Sounds like they need some sort of group that could allow them to band together and assert their right to academic freedom. That would be great. They could call it a union and it would allow them to collectively bargain and protect the jobs of teachers who get harassed by the administration.

And of course, yet again, there's no examples of people losing their jobs over this stuff, just vague rumors and insinuations. Neither Jenson nor anyone else has a right to speak where ever they want. Colleges are under no obligation to allow them to do so.

Why was I deplatformed? In both cases because I hold the evidently politically incorrect position that women, including those who have been sexually assaulted by males, should not be forced—as in, against their will—to share their most intimate spaces with men.

And by "men" he means "transwomen." But Jensen is nothing if not disingenuous. He's anti-trans, as is Lierre Keith, and that's why they've been disinvited to speak places.

And again, the only examples of people losing their jobs are because of right wingers going after them, not the left.

Total bullshit. But what else should we expect from Jensen.

0
1

[–] Dexter111 [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

And of course, yet again, there's no examples of people losing their jobs over this stuff, just vague rumors and insinuations. Neither Jenson nor anyone else has a right to speak where ever they want. Colleges are under no obligation to allow them to do so.

Oh, but there's plenty of examples. Because whoever disagrees with modern progressives obviously doesn't deserve a livelyhood: https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

This particular outgrowth of totalitarian ideology can kill things like comedy: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/10_famous_comedians_on_how_political_correctness_is_killing_comedy_we_are_addicted_to_the_rush_of_being_offended/ and lead to self- or actual censorship of entertainment products.

It can cost people that actually do something to advance humanity their career or reputation for seemingly no reason whatsoever: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11234620/Dr-Matt-Taylors-shirt-made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html

http://unfashionista.com/2015/07/07/the-tim-hunt-reporting-was-false-royal-society-please-give-him-due-process/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4501473.ece

It can potentially land people in prison or cost them their livelyhood: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech

It can cost people's education: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/tcu-scales-back-punishment-of-student-disciplined-for-controversial-tweets.html/

Or lead to loss of life in some of the most extreme cases: http://www.timesofisrael.com/civil-servant-commits-suicide-after-facebook-accusations-of-racism/

And by "men" he means "transwomen." But Jensen is nothing if not disingenuous. He's anti-trans, as is Lierre Keith, and that's why they've been disinvited to speak places.

And what if he was?

0
0

[–] KhuanZi ago 

So one example in the US from 1995? You've got less than ten examples of people losing their jobs over the course of two decades and you expect me to believe that it's a problem?

It can cost people's education:

And then the link says that it didn't cost anyone their education. The article is about how his punishment was rescinded.

And what if he was?

Well, then people don't want to hear their bigoted bullshit and have no obligation to do so. Why do you want to force people to listen to shit?

0
1

[–] o_V_o 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

And by "men" he means "transwomen."...He's anti-trans,

I actually know nothing of the person you're talking about, but.... what exactly is "anti-trans"? Is it being actively against the very concept of transitioning, or simply acknowledging that transitioning is a projection of how one feels rather than what one is? The two aren't the same and to conflate them is disingenuous and a rather obvious attempt at preventing criticism of one's believe.

Because it's been so abused, simply dropping a "He's anti-____" is no longer a conversation-ender (not that it ever was for people actually willing to participate in an honest debate).

0
1

[–] MayTheDerpBeWithYou 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you for speaking your mind!

To answer your direct question, anti-trans is a broad term assigned to people who as a you say, against the very concept of transitioning. In my experience the anti folks feel it's a cosmetic or fetish desire gone WAY too far. In those terms, I can understand the hysteria surrounding the push back, but it's a position built ignorant of facts and medical data sets.

To answer your assertion that feelings and states being are divided as cleanly as I think you are implying, and different, means that how you think can never come into play to define your state of being, because, what ever you think is a feeling and not ever able to be fact. It also could be construed to make the grand assumption, that mother nature never, ever, gets it wrong in the case of dispensing penises and vaginas. That it isn't possible for the equipment not to match the brain that runs it. Our entire planet's life as we know it is built on variation. To think that mismatches aren't possible in this case alone, is to my thinking, abnormal. In the case of trans folks, it can cause significant mental anguish and being anti-trans is pretty much to say to those folks, "you're nuts, suffer your self imposed insanity silently and stop asking us to go along with it. We draw the line here." Again, if you don't avail yourself of the available studies and data, this view makes perfect sense. I can also see it if you think that your body defines who you are, your mind is along for the ride and not able to define it's self, but in order for that to work out, it throws, "I think, therefore I am," out the window. "I am, and I happen to think about it.," more over.

Either way, the jury is largely IN on the medical data and it supports that being trans is a brain / body mismatch and not a belief or opinion. Vagina not found, unknown penis hardware installed, can not install proper drivers. With the amount of data I've researched and people I know, to say it's not, is the same argument against gravity because it's an evolving theory and not a fact. NO, we don't know exactly and perfectly how it works, but we know enough to say it's there, at work in a fashion we can predict quite well and refine that theory in support of the lions share of the previous conclusions. Please watch this video for a lecture on just one of these studies. If you would like more studies and data to support my stance, I'll happily oblige, but I have to run to an appointment and will do so when I get back this afternoon.

1
-1

[–] KhuanZi 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

To clarify. He actively supports excluding transwomen from women's spaces. He's anti-trans. He lies and pretends that transwomen aren't women, which they are.

2
-2

[–] KhuanZi 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

or simply acknowledging that transitioning is a projection of how one feels rather than what one is?

So you also think that transwomen aren't real women?

3
1

[–] p0ssum 3 points 1 point (+4|-3) ago 

That comparison is a joke.

1
5

[–] daskapitalist 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

A prime example that censorship isn't tied to a specific viewpoint or political ideology, but rather to wishing to suppress differing views that challenge one's own position.

2
-2

[–] KhuanZi 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Getting uninvited to speak at a college isn't censorship. They don't have to let you speak.

0
4

[–] daskapitalist 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

You're correct that they don't have to let you speak. The dilemma lies in creating an echo chamber by "uninviting" anyone who doesn't want to toe the ideological line that is popular at that university.

Part of the value of higher education is being exposed to alternative viewpoints and having one's ideas challenged, which isn't likely to happen if the university decides only one viewpoint is permitted.

0
4

[–] Fact_Checking_Alien 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't have to let you disagree with me. Lets have Atko remove all opinions we don't like.

I hope this demonstrates to you, clearly, why this is a severe social dilemma.