or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Academia, Democrats, and Thoughtcrime
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Academia, Democrats, and Thoughtcrime

post #1 of 482
Thread Starter 
We need a thread to explore this brave new world of campus wackiness. Hard line speech police, having driven conservatives and liberal professors into hiding, are now attacking progressives. This trend is also in full bloom in politics.

Today's example:

Obama is sexist because he talked mean about Elizabeth Warren (tribal name is Speaks with False Tongue).
Quote:
Democratic senator Sherrod Brown is subtly accusing President Barack Obama of sexism in his attacks on Senator Elizabeth Warren, also a Democrat.

"I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that...made this more personal," Brown told reporters.

"I think referring to her as her first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps--I've said enough."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-senator-accuses-obama-sexism-toward-elizabeth-warren_944873.html#!
post #2 of 482
Thread Starter 
Photograph of a student misconduct hearing on a campus in Massachusetts. Triggered and thought-assaulted students depicted at lower left in hysterics.



post #3 of 482
Thread Starter 
post #4 of 482
Quote:

That's a lotta fucking text to have to read on 3 Martinis and 2 beers.
post #5 of 482
Unnecessary thread. Cis-white male privilege is fully discussed in the feminism thread.
post #6 of 482
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

Unnecessary thread. Cis-white male privilege is fully discussed in the feminism thread.

This isn't about feminism or white privilege. Its about how political correctness is now turning on its creators. This is more about thoughtcrime, not about the pretty co-eds.
post #7 of 482
Thread Starter 
Female woman advises the left to not waste ammo. Chides white male for accusing white/black male president of sexism against native-american woman. (Capitalize races/genders/cis as you see fit).

Translation: Don't accuse our own people, use it to attack Republicans.

Quote:
President Obama said: "The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else. And you know, she's got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don't stand the test of fact and scrutiny." Some critics found this condescending.

Is it sexist to disagree with Senator Warren? Or to dismiss her position as, essentially, brainless political posturing? Why no, I don't think so. In fact, I just did, and I am pretty confident that this has nothing to do with the fact that she (like me) sports two X chromosomes.

But what about the way he said it, using her first name, disparaging her motives? Sherrod Brown suggested that this was sexist. As someone who has written more than once about the disproportionate, and frequently gender-specific, hate that women attract in the public square, this is certainly an argument that I'm ready to believe.

However, I have to point out that not every use of a first name is sexist. Not every political disagreement secretly is about the gender or race of the participants. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes calling a senator by his or her first name is just, well, calling a senator "Sherrod." Conservatives will attest that Obama does not reserve condescending and dismissive statements about his opponents and their motives for female politicians; this is pretty much par for the course when Obama discusses the Republican Party.

Now, it's true that the president used Sherrod Brown's first name in a nice way, while he used hers in an answer that was pretty dismissive. The great difficulty of sexism in this moment is that we're fighting subtle bias and knotty structural issues, not fellows who stride up to the podium to jauntily announce that women just don't have the brains for politics, the dear little things.

But there's a reason that I rarely dissect a statement in search of such subtle bias. It's because sexism is so serious we need to be careful when and where we level accusations. There's a danger that sexism will become just another magic word, used to shut down debate rather than start a needed conversation. It's a terrible idea to weaponize a serious issue and bring it into garden-variety political disputes; the accuser gains some temporary political advantage at the expense of actually fighting sexism.

People who carelessly toss around the "s" word are trying to have things both ways: They want sexism to be something very, very bad that forces the refs to stop the action and pull you out of the game, and they also want to be able to level this charge at every minor verbal tic that might be sexist. Even if it might just be, you know, politics. In this and other contexts, this is not a bargain that a modern society will strike. If you make the punishments draconian, people will hesitate to apply them widely. This is true in law enforcement, and it is true of social sins as well. To claim "sexism" too often just robs the word of its power.

So if we want to keep the norm that sexism is very bad, we need to think twice about when we pull out those accusations. Before you shoot, remember that you're not a movie hero with an unlimited supply of ammunition. You're the guy with a single six shooter crouching behind the bar. You have to make every shot count. Aim carefully. When in doubt, hold your fire.


http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-13/obama-critics-accusation-of-sexism-doesn-t-stick
post #8 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

This isn't about feminism or white privilege. Its about how political correctness is now turning on its creators. This is more about thoughtcrime, not about the pretty co-eds.

Where is the thread on pretty co-eds?
post #9 of 482
post #10 of 482
Thread Starter 
I haven't ready dopey's link yet, but here's this in the meantime.

USA Today no less. Ouch.


Reynolds: Democrats sic identity politics on their own
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 10:38 a.m. EDT May 18, 2015

The left has handicapped its ability to debate policy, even among themselves.

Quote:
The Democrats' tendency to argue identity politics over policy is more awkward when it's aimed at other Democrats. As The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin comments: "Is the 'war on women' being waged by the White House, or have Democrats become so accustomed to demonizing their opponents that they can't engage in civil debates even among themselves? It does not speak well of the Democrats' ability to persuade and lead. But it does portend a non-stop stream of gender bias claims in the 2016 presidential election."

In my experience, people argue identity when they don't want to argue policy. And the reason they don't want to argue policy, usually, is that they're wrong. But in arguing that everyone who disagrees with them is a racist, or a sexist, or a tool of Big Money, or whatever, the Democrats run the risk of self-destruction. This is basically what happened to the the Labour Party in Britain: A reliance on easy tropes that please the base but alienate other voters.

As Daniel Hannan notes: "When leftists attack the Tories, they're not just having a go at 300 MPs, or 100,000 party members: They're scorning everyone who has contemplated supporting the party. ... How do you think this sort of thing goes down, not only with anyone who has ever voted Conservative, but with moderate people who, though they haven't voted Tory themselves, have friends and family who have? When you adopt a bullying tone, you find that 1) voters don't like it; 2) you solidify the other side's core support; and 3) some people hide their voting intentions."

Likewise, too many prominent Democrats and supporters have spent the past six years calling everyone who doesn't agree with Obama a racist. Now some of the same folks are gearing up to call everyone who doesn't support Clinton (or, perhaps, Warren, the backup-Hillary) a sexist. For instance, one group of Hillary supporters makes the preposterous claim that saying she is "out of touch" or 'insincere" reflects a sexist worldview. This technique worked pretty well so far for Obama's presidency, but it now seems to be wearing thin, even within the Democratic Party.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/17/obama-women-warren-naacp-sexist-column/27486597/
post #11 of 482
Thread Starter 
I once asked a very liberal friend of mine if he enjoyed having the media and academia on his side. He started to argue that the liberal bias argument was unproven and that there was no such bias and that I shouldn't generalize, etc.

I then said, "Look, we both know you guys have the colleges and the main stream media. Why don't you just admit it and say its a good thing for you."

With that, he said, 'Yeah, its very helpful. Its nice."


The evidence is so overwhelming that only a bias denier or no-bias truther would argue otherwise.

Why don't liberals and anti-liberals (progressives) simply admit that they have media and colleges on their side?

I will freely admit that conservatives have logic, experience, history, and common sense on our side.
post #12 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

I once asked a very liberal friend of mine if he enjoyed having the media and academia on his side. He started to argue that the liberal bias argument was unproven and that there was no such bias and that I shouldn't generalize, etc.

I then said, "Look, we both know you guys have the colleges and the main stream media. Why don't you just admit it and say its a good thing for you."

With that, he said, 'Yeah, its very helpful. Its nice."


The evidence is so overwhelming that only a bias denier or no-bias truther would argue otherwise.

Why don't liberals and anti-liberals (progressives) simply admit that they have media and colleges on their side?

I will freely admit that conservatives have logic, experience, history, and common sense on our side.


You're both fucking idiots. Only the libertarians know what's up.
post #13 of 482
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

You're both fucking idiots. Only the libertarians know what's up.


Yeah, what's up in Stupidville, USA.
post #14 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Yeah, what's up in Stupidville, USA.


Low taxes, cheap gasoline, no wars, legal weed, What's up in Prisonville, Texas?
post #15 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

I once asked a very liberal friend of mine if he enjoyed having the media and academia on his side. He started to argue that the liberal bias argument was unproven and that there was no such bias and that I shouldn't generalize, etc.

I then said, "Look, we both know you guys have the colleges and the main stream media. Why don't you just admit it and say its a good thing for you."

With that, he said, 'Yeah, its very helpful. Its nice."


The evidence is so overwhelming that only a bias denier or no-bias truther would argue otherwise.

Why don't liberals and anti-liberals (progressives) simply admit that they have media and colleges on their side?

I will freely admit that conservatives have logic, experience, history, and common sense on our side.

So John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison didn't have logic, common sense, or experience on their side? I am pretty sure they would be "classic liberals" which is probably more in-tune with libertarianism than either major political party today (or whatever ideology is behind them).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Academia, Democrats, and Thoughtcrime