Very sad. :(
At least in America the constitution will mostly prevent the erosion of free speech before the law, though social pressure will make its mark.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/18/mark-steyn-the-slow-death-of-free-speech/
QuoteThe slow death of free speech
Mark Steyn, Special to National Post | April 18, 2014 | Last Updated: Apr 17 11:55 AM ET
These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'Fucking Zionist, fucking pricks... Get the fuck off our campus.'
In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek 'special clearance' before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.
In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.
And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C — whoa, don't worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it's down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Agedescribed as the ongoing debate about 'where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society'.
I heard a lot of that kind of talk during my battles with the Canadian 'human rights' commissions a few years ago: of course, we all believe in free speech, but it's a question of how you 'strike the balance', where you 'draw the line'... which all sounds terribly reasonable and Canadian, and apparently Australian, too. But in reality the point of free speech is for the stuff that's over the line, and strikingly unbalanced. If free speech is only for polite persons of mild temperament within government-policed parameters, it isn't free at all. So screw that.
But I don't really think that many people these days are genuinely interested in 'striking the balance'; they've drawn the line and they're increasingly unashamed about which side of it they stand. What all the above stories have in common, whether nominally about Israel, gay marriage, climate change, Islam, or even freedom of the press, is that one side has cheerfully swapped that apocryphal Voltaire quote about disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it for the pithier Ring Lardner line: '"Shut up," he explained.'
A generation ago, progressive opinion at least felt obliged to pay lip service to the Voltaire shtick. These days, nobody's asking you to defend yourself to the death: a mildly supportive retweet would do. But even that's further than most of those in the academy, the arts, the media are prepared to go. As Erin Ching, a student at 60-grand-a-year Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, put it in her college newspaper the other day: 'What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.' Yeah, who needs that? There speaks the voice of a generation: celebrate diversity by enforcing conformity.
The examples above are ever-shrinking Dantean circles of Tolerance: At Galway, the dissenting opinion was silenced by grunting thugs screaming four-letter words. At Mozilla, the chairwoman is far more housetrained: she issued a nice press release all about (per Miss Alcorn) striking a balance between freedom of speech and 'equality', and how the best way to 'support' a 'culture' of 'diversity' and 'inclusiveness' is by firing anyone who dissents from the mandatory groupthink. At the House of Commons they're moving to the next stage: in an 'inclusive culture' ever more comfortable with narrower bounds of public discourse, it seems entirely natural that the next step should be for dissenting voices to require state permission to speak.
At Brandeis University, we are learning the hierarchy of the new multiculti caste system. In theory, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is everything the identity-group fetishists dig: female, atheist, black, immigrant. If conservative white males were to silence a secular women's rights campaigner from Somalia, it would be proof of the Republican party's 'war on women', or the encroaching Christian fundamentalist theocracy, or just plain old Andrew Boltian racism breaking free of its redoubt at the Herald Sun to rampage as far as the eye can see. But when the snivelling white male who purports to be president of Brandeis (one Frederick Lawrence) does it out of deference to Islam, Miss Hirsi Ali's blackness washes off her like a bad dye job on a telly news anchor. White feminist Germaine Greer can speak at Brandeis because, in one of the more whimsical ideological evolutions even by dear old Germaine's standards, Ms Greer feels that clitoridectomies add to the rich tapestry of 'cultural identity': 'One man's beautification is another man's mutilation,' as she puts it. But black feminist Hirsi Ali, who was on the receiving end of 'one man's mutilation' and lives under death threats because she was boorish enough to complain about it, is too 'hateful' to be permitted to speak. In the internal contradictions of multiculturalism, Islam trumps all: race, gender, secularism, everything. So, in the interests of multiculti sensitivity, pampered upper-middle-class trusty-fundy children of entitlement are pronouncing a Somali refugee beyond the pale and signing up to Islamic strictures on the role of women.
That's another reason why Gay Alcorn's fretting over 'striking the balance' is so irrelevant. No matter where you strike it, the last unread nonagenarian white supremacist Xeroxing flyers in a shack off the Tanami Track will be way over the line, while, say, Sheikh Sharif Hussein's lively sermon to an enthusiastic crowd at the Islamic Da'wah Centre of South Australia, calling on Allah to kill every last Buddhist and Hindu, will be safely inside it. One man's decapitation is another man's cultural validation, as Germaine would say.
Ms Greer has reached that Circle of Tolerance wherein the turkeys line up to volunteer for an early Eid. The Leveson Inquiry declaration of support signed by all those London luvvies like Emma Thompson, Tom Stoppard, Maggie Smith, Bob Geldof and Ian McKellen is the stage that comes after that House of Commons Science and Technology Committee — when the most creative spirits in our society all suddenly say: 'Ooh, yes, please, state regulation, bring it on!' Many of the eminent thespians who signed this letter started their careers in an era when every play performed in the West End had to be approved by the Queen's Lord Chamberlain. Presented with a script that contained three 'fucks' and an explicit reference to anal sex, he'd inform the producer that he would be permitted two 'crikeys' and a hint of heavy petting. In 1968, he lost his censorship powers, and the previously banned Hair, of all anodyne trifles, could finally be seen on the London stage: this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius. Only four and a half decades after the censor's departure, British liberals are panting for the reimposition of censorship under a new 'Royal Charter'.
This is the aging of the dawn of Aquarius: new blasphemy laws for progressive pieties. In the New Statesman, Sarah Ditum seemed befuddled that the 'No Platform' movement — a vigorous effort to deny public platforms to the British National party and the English Defence League — has mysteriously advanced from silencing 'violent fascists' to silencing all kinds of other people, like aGuardian feminist who ventured some insufficiently affirming observations about trans-women and is now unfit for polite society. But, once you get a taste for shutting people up, it's hard to stop. Why bother winning the debate when it's easier to close it down?
Nick Lowles defined the 'No Platform' philosophy as 'the position where we refuse to allow fascists an opportunity to act like normal political parties'. But free speech is essential to a free society because, when you deny people 'an opportunity to act like normal political parties', there's nothing left for them to do but punch your lights out. Free speech, wrote the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson last week, 'buttresses the political system's legitimacy. It helps losers, in the struggle for public opinion and electoral success, to accept their fates. It helps keep them loyal to the system, even though it has disappointed them. They will accept the outcomes, because they believe they've had a fair opportunity to express and advance their views. There's always the next election. Free speech underpins our larger concept of freedom.'
Just so. A fortnight ago I was in Quebec for a provincial election in which the ruling separatist party went down to its worst defeat in almost half a century. This was a democratic contest fought between parties that don't even agree on what country they're in. In Ottawa for most of the 1990s the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition was a chap who barely acknowledged either the head of state or the state she's head of. Which is as it should be. Because, if a Quebec separatist or an Australian republican can't challenge the constitutional order through public advocacy, the only alternative is to put on a black ski-mask and skulk around after dark blowing stuff up.
I'm opposed to the notion of official ideology — not just fascism, Communism and Baathism, but the fluffier ones, too, like 'multiculturalism' and 'climate change' and 'marriage equality'. Because the more topics you rule out of discussion — immigration, Islam, 'gender fluidity' — the more you delegitimise the political system. As your cynical political consultant sees it, a commitment to abolish Section 18C is more trouble than it's worth: you'll just spends weeks getting damned as cobwebbed racists seeking to impose a bigots' charter when you could be moving the meter with swing voters by announcing a federal programmne of transgendered bathroom construction. But, beyond the shrunken horizons of spinmeisters, the inability to roll back something like 18C says something profound about where we're headed: a world where real, primal, universal rights — like freedom of expression — come a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights.
Oh, don't worry. There'll still be plenty of 'offending, insulting or humiliating' in such a world, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Mozilla CEO and Zionists and climate deniers and feminist 'cis-women' not quite au courant with transphobia can all tell you. And then comes the final, eerie silence. Young Erin Ching at Swarthmore College has grasped the essential idea: it is not merely that, as the Big Climate enforcers say, 'the science is settled', but so is everything else, from abortion to gay marriage. So what's to talk about? Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but 'safe spaces' where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, 'gender fluidity' and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.
As it happens, the biggest 'safe space' on the planet is the Muslim world. For a millennium, Islamic scholars have insisted, as firmly as a climate scientist or an American sophomore, that there's nothing to debate. And what happened? As the United Nations Human Development Programme's famous 2002 report blandly noted, more books are translated in Spain in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. Free speech and a dynamic, innovative society are intimately connected: a culture that can't bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast.
As American universities, British playwrights and Australian judges once understood, the 'safe space' is where cultures go to die.
:lol:
Article listed Mozilla so I skipped it.
Quotecome a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights
And here it is. Groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. Any system that gives groups rights is anti-individual.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 09:10:05 PM
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'Fucking Zionist, fucking pricks... Get the fuck off our campus.'
This example strikes me as different people exercising their free speech rights at the same time. Free speech to me means that the government will not prevent these people from speaking their minds. But that doesn't mean that individuals can't shout down each other.
Yeah, the article isn't so much about governments stifling free speech as about leftists using various methods to try to silence speech they disagree with.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 09:29:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 09:10:05 PM
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'Fucking Zionist, fucking pricks... Get the fuck off our campus.'
This example strikes me as different people exercising their free speech rights at the same time. Free speech to me means that the government will not prevent these people from speaking their minds. But that doesn't mean that individuals can't shout down each other.
And that, in a nutshell, is a problem with merely relying on Constitution to protect your rights. You can effectively boycott, coerce, and intimidate people into giving up the excercise of their rights, without the government ever getting involved.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2014, 09:32:55 PM
Yeah, the article isn't so much about governments stifling free speech as about leftists using various methods to try to silence speech they disagree with.
From Mark Steyn. I'm shocked, shocked.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2014, 09:40:59 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 09:29:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 09:10:05 PM
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'Fucking Zionist, fucking pricks... Get the fuck off our campus.'
This example strikes me as different people exercising their free speech rights at the same time. Free speech to me means that the government will not prevent these people from speaking their minds. But that doesn't mean that individuals can't shout down each other.
And that, in a nutshell, is a problem with merely relying on Constitution to protect your rights. You can effectively boycott, coerce, and intimidate people into giving up the excercise of their rights, without the government ever getting involved.
Like when I don't speak my mind at work so I can continue to put food on the table! :o
"Big Climate enforcers"?
Steyn is a joke.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2014, 09:40:59 PM
And that, in a nutshell, is a problem with merely relying on Constitution to protect your rights. You can effectively boycott, coerce, and intimidate people into giving up the excercise of their rights, without the government ever getting involved.
If that is the problem, then what is your solution?
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 10:08:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2014, 09:40:59 PM
And that, in a nutshell, is a problem with merely relying on Constitution to protect your rights. You can effectively boycott, coerce, and intimidate people into giving up the excercise of their rights, without the government ever getting involved.
If that is the problem, then what is your solution?
Do I need to have a solution when pointing out the problem? There is no easy solution, because by necessity any solution will be a trade of one freedom for another, and will always be controversial. We do have laws like that already, such as laws against discrimination, but there is obviously a limit as to how much you can push such a concept before the cure is worse than the disease.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 10:08:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2014, 09:40:59 PM
And that, in a nutshell, is a problem with merely relying on Constitution to protect your rights. You can effectively boycott, coerce, and intimidate people into giving up the excercise of their rights, without the government ever getting involved.
If that is the problem, then what is your solution?
Brownshirts beating up hippies.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 10:08:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2014, 09:40:59 PM
And that, in a nutshell, is a problem with merely relying on Constitution to protect your rights. You can effectively boycott, coerce, and intimidate people into giving up the excercise of their rights, without the government ever getting involved.
If that is the problem, then what is your solution?
Not allow people to disrupt talks like that. If they disagree they can debate him civily or offer their own talk.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 10:58:07 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 10:08:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2014, 09:40:59 PM
And that, in a nutshell, is a problem with merely relying on Constitution to protect your rights. You can effectively boycott, coerce, and intimidate people into giving up the excercise of their rights, without the government ever getting involved.
If that is the problem, then what is your solution?
Not allow be people to disrupt talks like that. If they disagree they can debate him civily or offer their own talk.
Isn't this solution yet another infringement on free speech? And who is going to enforce this?
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 11:01:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 10:58:07 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 10:08:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2014, 09:40:59 PM
And that, in a nutshell, is a problem with merely relying on Constitution to protect your rights. You can effectively boycott, coerce, and intimidate people into giving up the excercise of their rights, without the government ever getting involved.
If that is the problem, then what is your solution?
Not allow be people to disrupt talks like that. If they disagree they can debate him civily or offer their own talk.
Isn't this solution yet another infringement on free speech? And who is going to enforce this?
My way both sides can speak, in the original only one side can speak. How is that not an improvement?
Seems to me that should be up to the university and not the government.
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 11:02:48 PM
My way both sides can speak, in the original only one side can speak. How is that not an improvement?
If the debate takes place in, say, a university, and the event organisers want to maintain order, sure. But I think it is very dangerous for the government to regulate these things.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 21, 2014, 11:15:39 PM
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
:(
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 09:26:54 PM
Quotecome a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights
And here it is. Groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. Any system that gives groups rights is anti-individual.
Yes.
Corporations are not people. Groups do not have rights.
Has it been established that "free speech" (in the way the word is used in the article) is declining? Seems to me that there is an ongoing shift in what is thought acceptable and not, which can give the impression of massive change, but is this actually so? These days you have to be careful speaking against gay marriage, not long ago it was the other way around.
The POTUS is a cripple??! Sshhh!!!
Quote from: Jacob on April 21, 2014, 09:51:25 PM
"Big Climate enforcers"?
Steyn is a joke.
And Tim is an idiot for posting this drivel.
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2014, 02:34:43 AM
The POTUS is a cripple??! Sshhh!!!
I don't think that kind of secrecy is technologically possible now. Roosevelt's driver would tweet it eventually.
Public record keeping does need to be updated to take this stuff into account though. Modern tech is beating the snot out of original intent on many fronts.
Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 01:04:28 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 21, 2014, 11:15:39 PM
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
:(
Relax. Your culture wins on both counts.
Can't see how free speech is declining in a day and age where internet allows such a wild and unrestricted dissemination of thoughts.
People too often confuse freedom of speech with freedom of saying what they want without consequences.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 11:01:49 PM
Isn't this solution yet another infringement on free speech? And who is going to enforce this?
"They" will. The same unicorns that will make sure that sexual predators will stop being sexual predators if we put their name on a list.
Quote from: Jacob on April 21, 2014, 09:51:25 PM
"Big Climate enforcers"?
Steyn is a joke.
Yes. This is just a few anecdotes compiled into a "trend" for the sake of a bullshit argument that wouldn't have a single person paying attention if it couldn't cite a sophomoric comment by a college sophomore.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2014, 09:29:08 PM
This example strikes me as different people exercising their free speech rights at the same time. Free speech to me means that the government will not prevent these people from speaking their minds. But that doesn't mean that individuals can't shout down each other.
Shouting down a speaker is as much an exercise of free speech as me deleting your posts.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 02:52:46 AMRelax. Your culture wins on both counts.
Yet I embrace multiculturalism.
I don't care where "my culture" ranks in your league tables (and which culture is that?). What I care about is that you have signed on with the grallonites; I had thought better of you.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 21, 2014, 11:15:39 PM
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
"Multiculturalism" is not the idea that all cultures are equally good, much less the notion that the relative worth of cultural expressions cannot be debated - it is the idea that the government should not be in the business of
enforcing adherence to one set of cultural norms (usually, those of the majority) over another.
Quote from: Malthus on April 22, 2014, 10:11:00 AM
"Multiculturalism" is not the idea that all cultures are equally good, much less the notion that the relative worth of cultural expressions cannot be debated - it is the idea that the government should not be in the business of enforcing adherence to one set of cultural norms (usually, those of the majority) over another.
Is that it? Because it always sounded more complicated than that.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 10:12:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 22, 2014, 10:11:00 AM
"Multiculturalism" is not the idea that all cultures are equally good, much less the notion that the relative worth of cultural expressions cannot be debated - it is the idea that the government should not be in the business of enforcing adherence to one set of cultural norms (usually, those of the majority) over another.
Is that it? Because it always sounded more complicated than that.
That's basically it, though there are plenty of straw-men versions set up by those looking to justify the government imposing their favoured cultural norms.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 10:12:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 22, 2014, 10:11:00 AM
"Multiculturalism" is not the idea that all cultures are equally good, much less the notion that the relative worth of cultural expressions cannot be debated - it is the idea that the government should not be in the business of enforcing adherence to one set of cultural norms (usually, those of the majority) over another.
Is that it? Because it always sounded more complicated than that.
The set of opposites is multiculturalism vs. assimilation (often described as "cultural mosaic" vs. "melting pot").
The actual policies vary - from on the one hand positive government encouragement for different cultures (could be satyrized as 'hand-outs for each cultural group to have its own little folk dance troupe') through simply even-handed non-intervention.
Similarly, assimilation can vary from even-handed non-intervention through Grallionite policies.
In the middle, "multiculturalism" and the "melting pot" can look pretty well identical, in practical terms - on the one hand the government can allow all cultures equal reign and no interfere with them in the confident expectation that they will flourish, and on the other, the government can allow all cultures equal reign and no interference in the confident expectation that everyone will eventually assimilate into the background culture. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on April 22, 2014, 10:22:20 AM
the government can allow all cultures equal reign and no interference in the confident expectation that everyone will eventually assimilate into the background culture. ;)
The Valmy plan.
Quote from: Malthus on April 22, 2014, 10:11:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 21, 2014, 11:15:39 PM
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
"Multiculturalism" is not the idea that all cultures are equally good, much less the notion that the relative worth of cultural expressions cannot be debated - it is the idea that the government should not be in the business of enforcing adherence to one set of cultural norms (usually, those of the majority) over another.
Not true in Sweden.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 10:25:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 22, 2014, 10:22:20 AM
the government can allow all cultures equal reign and no interference in the confident expectation that everyone will eventually assimilate into the background culture. ;)
The Valmy plan.
The reason why anti-multiculturalists sometimes dislike the Valmy plan: there in no guarantee that the composition of the "background culture" will not be influenced by outsiders - i.e., which way the "assimilation" will go. See Quebec, use of English in; US, use of Spanish in.
Quote from: Malthus on April 22, 2014, 10:28:29 AM
The reason why anti-multiculturalists sometimes dislike the Valmy plan: there in no guarantee that the composition of the "background culture" will not be influenced by outsiders - i.e., which way the "assimilation" will go. See Quebec, use of English in; US, use of Spanish in.
That is not a bug in the Valmy plan, it is a feature. :P
But I do not regard preserving American culture as it was as important, merely preserving American culture. Schmoozing like a putz with immigrants is how we get wonderful American cultural things like gratuitous Yiddish.
I generally agree with you, Malthus, but I don't think the binary is "mosaic" vs "melting pot"; in my view there's a third common approach which is "assimilation". In my view the "melting pot" approach has a goal of the different constituent cultures merging into a single culture, but with each culture contributing various parts; this is different than the not uncommon view that people of different cultures should abandon their culture and simply adopt the allegedly superior majority culture.
There's a difference between abandoning your culture in favour of the state sanctioned culture, and having parts of your culture amalgamated into the state sanctioned one.
Other than that quibble, we are in agreement :)
Still a good :lol: at Greer's cultural relativism. A quick check confirmed it, even giving a BBC link and of course lots of blogs having a field day with leftist feminism nonsense.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 10:32:56 AM
Still a good :lol: at Greer's cultural relativism. A quick check confirmed it, even giving a BBC link and of course lots of blogs having a field day with leftist feminism nonsense.
?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 10:32:56 AM
Still a good :lol: at Greer's cultural relativism. A quick check confirmed it, even giving a BBC link and of course lots of blogs having a field day with leftist feminism nonsense.
It strikes me as unlikely that clitoridectomies would be something leftist feminists are even neutral about, but to be fair I rarely hear them address it.
Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 10:31:18 AM
I generally agree with you, Malthus, but I don't think the binary is "mosaic" vs "melting pot"; in my view there's a third common approach which is "assimilation". In my view the "melting pot" approach has a goal of the different constituent cultures merging into a single culture, but with each culture contributing various parts; this is different than the not uncommon view that people of different cultures should abandon their culture and simply adopt the allegedly superior majority culture.
There's a difference between abandoning your culture in favour of the state sanctioned culture, and having parts of your culture amalgamated into the state sanctioned one.
Other than that quibble, we are in agreement :)
Fair. At the centre though they all tend to converge - what differs is the expectation of eventual outcome on the part of the observer.
A multiculturalist expects that each culture will continue vibrantly on its own, as part of a "cultural mosaic".
A believer in the "melting pot" expects that the cultures will, as the label states, melt together, each contributing something.
An assimilationist believes that the virtues of his or her own culture are so evident that people will, if given the opportunity, freely adopt it.
People arguing for government intervention tend to be those who prefer one or another of these outcomes, but do not really believe they will come about without some sort of intervention.
Myself? I tend to believe a bit in all of them - that is, in my opinion, assuming no government policies or intervention, what the future holds is a "melting pot" society with some unsassimilated groups within it, and one that likely adopts many of the inherent virtues of already-established Western society (for example: equal status for women, tolerance of homosexuality, etc.).
I like tacos. But that is about enough of Mexican culture that I want. I don't need the overuse of eyeliner and makeup on the chicks, the bad driving or the awful music.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 22, 2014, 10:46:40 AM
I like tacos. But that is about enough of Mexican culture that I want. I don't need the overuse of eyeliner and makeup on the chicks, the bad driving or the awful music.
Well don't move down here then :lol:
Though I cannot help but notice the Tejano and Latino music is sounding more like American pop all the time :valmyplan:
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 22, 2014, 10:46:40 AM
I like tacos. But that is about enough of Mexican culture that I want. I don't need the overuse of eyeliner and makeup on the chicks, the bad driving or the awful music.
Well don't move down here then :lol:
Though I cannot help but notice the Tejano and Latino music is sounding more like American pop all the time :valmyplan:
But...the land is so cheap.
Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 10:31:18 AM
I generally agree with you, Malthus, but I don't think the binary is "mosaic" vs "melting pot"; in my view there's a third common approach which is "assimilation". In my view the "melting pot" approach has a goal of the different constituent cultures merging into a single culture, but with each culture contributing various parts; this is different than the not uncommon view that people of different cultures should abandon their culture and simply adopt the allegedly superior majority culture.
There's a difference between abandoning your culture in favour of the state sanctioned culture, and having parts of your culture amalgamated into the state sanctioned one.
Other than that quibble, we are in agreement :)
I'm not sure what you'd call that 3rd category. Traditionally melting pot and assimilation have been used together - either describing the view that all new members should conform in (there is little enough of new immigrants that when they melt in - they don't change overall flavor of stew to extend the metaphor) or I guess as you are proposing on this version that we all become one culture but different groups add different things.
To be honest, I'e seen the mosaic/salad bowl used more often for that middle way group as I don't know many people who advocate that wildly different cultures should exist in one state with no forming of cultural links.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 10:49:12 AM
Though I cannot help but notice the Tejano and Latino music is sounding more like American pop all the time :valmyplan:
As is country. /sigh
Indy rock is sounding mostly more like pop too, but with some electronica (dubstep) to keep it edgy.
Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 01:04:28 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 21, 2014, 11:15:39 PM
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
:(
:nelson:
Steyn rules. He's hilarious plus he has a funny accent.
Quote from: Malthus on April 22, 2014, 10:11:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 21, 2014, 11:15:39 PM
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
"Multiculturalism" is not the idea that all cultures are equally good, much less the notion that the relative worth of cultural expressions cannot be debated - it is the idea that the government should not be in the business of enforcing adherence to one set of cultural norms (usually, those of the majority) over another.
I agree with this at the government level. At the personal level I think there is more.
I would say it involves rejection of the idea of a national or mainstream culture, or at least the rejection of the notion that those not of the mainstream culture are outsiders. I would also say it involves debating the merits and flaws of cultural
traits rather than whole-cloth cultures.
Of course that's just my interpretation.
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2014, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 01:04:28 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 21, 2014, 11:15:39 PM
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
:(
:nelson:
Steyn rules. He's hilarious plus he has a funny accent.
And he feeds that victim complex that conservatives love but claim they don't have. "Big climate is taking away our freedom of speech!". :lol:
Quote from: Maximus on April 22, 2014, 11:57:26 AM
I would say it involves rejection of the idea of a national or mainstream culture, or at least the rejection of the notion that those not of the mainstream culture are outsiders. I would also say it involves debating the merits and flaws of cultural traits rather than whole-cloth cultures.
If I am to reject the notion of a mainstream American culture than what am I to refer to the mainstream American culture as? :hmm:
This sounds too complicated.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 12:12:49 PM
And he feeds that victim complex that conservatives love but claim they don't have. "Big climate is taking away our freedom of speech!". :lol:
Isn't he getting sued by somebody over it? I suspect that would have an effect on somebody's victim mentality in one way or another.
Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 09:32:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 02:52:46 AMRelax. Your culture wins on both counts.
Yet I embrace multiculturalism.
I don't care where "my culture" ranks in your league tables (and which culture is that?).
I thought you didn't care? :P Danish and Canadian. They have some troubling aspects, like suspending judgment for everything but someone else's judgment. But overall they're superior to American culture, which has the advantage of self-confidence but is ultimately cruel and Hobbesian and failed.
QuoteWhat I care about is that you have signed on with the grallonites; I had thought better of you.
We've had this argument before. A culture can be evil or damaging. And criticizing a culture is no more Grallonish than criticizing a political view. You just think it's racist because it sometimes happens to involve ethnonyms, which is knee-jerk thinking.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 12:28:53 PM
If I am to reject the notion of a mainstream American culture than what am I to refer to the mainstream American culture as? :hmm:
This sounds too complicated.
Maybe you could accept the idea that there isn't
a "the mainstream American culture," but just a series of cultural traits that we lazily refer to as "American" even though they are not unique to America.
I don't think that there is a mainstream American culture and I haven't suffered due to my lack of belief. I only use the term "American culture" in the lazy man's sense of the word.
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 01:22:12 PM
Maybe you could accept the idea that there isn't a "the mainstream American culture," but just a series of cultural traits that we lazily refer to as "American" even though they are not unique to America.
I don't think that there is a mainstream American culture and I haven't suffered due to my lack of belief. I only use the term "American culture" in the lazy man's sense of the word.
What the fuck is the difference between a culture and a series of cultural traits? What would the energetic and forceful dashing grumbler of culture refer to that as?
Since there is no American Culture then Elvis is an Icon of _____ culture. Fill in the blank.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 01:22:12 PM
Maybe you could accept the idea that there isn't a "the mainstream American culture," but just a series of cultural traits that we lazily refer to as "American" even though they are not unique to America.
I don't think that there is a mainstream American culture and I haven't suffered due to my lack of belief. I only use the term "American culture" in the lazy man's sense of the word.
What the fuck is the difference between a culture and a series of cultural traits? What would the energetic and forceful dashing grumbler of culture refer to that as?
Since there is no American Culture then Elvis is an Icon of _____ culture. Fill in the blank.
Well as an example, I was recently re-reading Anglofiles and there was a discussion about British culture. Author recounted a poll that included standard cliches like BBC, stiff upper lip, snobbery, royal family etc. She then noted when looking for an identity some comments back Jack Straw and Orwell that focused in on a quiet celebration of liberty. All of the above are sort of vaguely true for some but then many aren't also something unique to just one culture.
In the US, that's probably more diffuse where while some of us have some shared cultural items, do they apply to the majority of us? And with the age old Canadian culture vs. American culture, how unique are those items?
edit: Side note (with your Elvis bit) but is culture just the same as pop culture?
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2014, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 01:04:28 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 21, 2014, 11:15:39 PM
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
:(
:nelson:
Steyn rules. He's hilarious plus he has a funny accent.
Steyn is a clown, and apparently so is Ide.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2014, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 12:12:49 PM
And he feeds that victim complex that conservatives love but claim they don't have. "Big climate is taking away our freedom of speech!". :lol:
Isn't he getting sued by somebody over it? I suspect that would have an effect on somebody's victim mentality in one way or another.
He's getting sued by "Big Climate"? I'd like to see a few of the details on that, not least of which who "Big Climate" actually is.
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 01:22:12 PM
Maybe you could accept the idea that there isn't a "the mainstream American culture," but just a series of cultural traits that we lazily refer to as "American" even though they are not unique to America.
The traits may not be unique, but the combination probably is.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Since there is no American Culture then Elvis is an Icon of _____ culture. Fill in the blank.
I wouldnt say Elvis was an Icon of "American Culture" whatever that might be. Elvis is an Icon of early Rock and Roll culture for the whole world.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 01:53:04 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2014, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 12:12:49 PM
And he feeds that victim complex that conservatives love but claim they don't have. "Big climate is taking away our freedom of speech!". :lol:
Isn't he getting sued by somebody over it? I suspect that would have an effect on somebody's victim mentality in one way or another.
He's getting sued by "Big Climate"? I'd like to see a few of the details on that, not least of which who "Big Climate" actually is.
The guy is being sued by God for messing up his creation. :gaia:
Quote from: mongers on April 22, 2014, 02:01:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 01:53:04 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2014, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 12:12:49 PM
And he feeds that victim complex that conservatives love but claim they don't have. "Big climate is taking away our freedom of speech!". :lol:
Isn't he getting sued by somebody over it? I suspect that would have an effect on somebody's victim mentality in one way or another.
He's getting sued by "Big Climate"? I'd like to see a few of the details on that, not least of which who "Big Climate" actually is.
The guy is being sued by God for messing up his creation. :gaia:
Took me a bit but apparently he's being sued for defamation by claiming a scientist knowingly fabricated data. Academics are touchy about that kind of thing. Let's see if he actually has to pay damages.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 12:36:44 PM
I thought you didn't care? :P Danish and Canadian. They have some troubling aspects, like suspending judgment for everything but someone else's judgment. But overall they're superior to American culture, which has the advantage of self-confidence but is ultimately cruel and Hobbesian and failed.
I don't care about where you rank what you suppose my culture is; I was wondering what you thought my culture was. My life, my identity, and my family are all quite multicultural.
QuoteWe've had this argument before. A culture can be evil or damaging.
Elements of cultural practice can be damaging and evil, but any given cultural practice - however damaging or evil it may be - is not the sole defining characteristic of a culture. In many cases, there is resistance within a culture to damaging and evil practices. By equating whatever negative trait you're obsessing over at the moment with the culture as a whole, you are delegitimizing the opposition to said practices and supporting the perpetrators of those practices.
By creating and enforcing a rigid taxonomy of cultural traits and imposing it on those around you, you are magnifying causes for intercultural conflict and amplifying the scope of the very traits you claim to abhor.
QuoteAnd criticizing a culture is no more Grallonish than criticizing a political view. You just think it's racist because it sometimes happens to involve ethnonyms, which is knee-jerk thinking.
I have given little thought to whether the use of ethnonyms in this context is racist. I do, however, think it is lazy and unrigorous thinking, as well as usually being inaccurate and counterproductive.
Then again, one of the hallmarks of Southern white trash culture is the rigid adherence to arbitrary group identity definitions, so there's always a group to feel superior to no matter any individual level of failure; at least "you're not one of them".
Like I suggest earlier in this post, there's plenty of scope for criticizing individual cultural practices. There's plenty of reason to regulate egregious abuses of individual rights, and "it's my culture" is not a valid counter argument on that count. But essentialist hierarchies of objective cultural worth are spurious. Frankly I thought better of you than buying into that kind of shit, but I suppose I simply forgot.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
What the fuck is the difference between a culture and a series of cultural traits? What would the energetic and forceful dashing grumbler of culture refer to that as?
Dude, take a chill pill. Then, rethink this question of yours, because the difference between a culture and cultural traits should be obvious. If it isn't, ask again, and specify which ideas you are having trouble with.
QuoteSince there is no American Culture then Elvis is an Icon of _____ culture. Fill in the blank.
"Since there is no American culture?" I don't know that this is true. Surely, there must be
some culture, somewhere.
Elvis is an Icon of _
pop_ culture
Elvis is an Icon of _
lack of_ culture
Elvis is an Icon of _
vulture_ culture
Re: free speech, xkcd has a comic on the subject:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Ffree_speech.png&hash=f58247517fe8801a6542a079d17611c86ee434fe)
That's true & all but there's a difference between legal rights regarding speech and the concept of free speech.
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2014, 02:46:13 PM
That's true & all but there's a difference between legal rights regarding speech and the concept of free speech.
Fair enough. I don't think I buy the comic completely myself.
There's a spectrum between expressing disagreement and/or declining to materially support someone expressing their opinion on one hand vs making it impossible for someone to express their opinion altogether because you don't like it on the other. Where exactly we draw the line varies, and may even vary a bit with whether we agree more with the speaker or the ones who disagree.
QuoteThen again, one of the hallmarks of Southern white trash culture is the rigid adherence to arbitrary group identity definitions, so there's always a group to feel superior to no matter any individual level of failure; at least "you're not one of them".
At least I'm not one of "those" either, that is sanctimonious pricks who use borderline-bigoted language to make a stupid point about how what they wrongly perceive as bigotry is bad.
QuoteBy creating and enforcing a rigid taxonomy of cultural traits and imposing it on those around you, you are magnifying causes for intercultural conflict and amplifying the scope of the very traits you claim to abhor.
Yeah, it'd be a real dick move if someone aggressively shut down a conversation by enforcing a rigid taxonomy of cultural traits with their loaded vocabulary and blanket condemnation, wouldn't it? Good thing I didn't do that.
QuoteThere's plenty of reason to regulate egregious abuses of individual rights, and "it's my culture" is not a valid counter argument on that count. But essentialist hierarchies of objective cultural worth are spurious.
"My culture (and the previous legal regime under which I lived) permit husbands to beat their wives."
"Your culture, despite some better qualities, sucks."
It's not terribly nuanced, but it's neither prejudice nor bigotry nor establishing a "blah blah blah hierarchy" to make myself "feel better." Guess as a white trash Southerner, just absolutely
mired in a legacy of slavery and poverty, I'm just not as bright as a ball of light (and snideness).
Oh, incidentally, I obviously had no problem with the Mozilla thing. But I think I said so in that thread. Nothing wrong with shaming or marginalizing someone with an incorrect opinion (if it indeed is incorrect).
Cultures are differently valuable. Some are shit and should be cleansed with atomic fire. Some, while horrible, can be allowed a marginal existence (Japanese). Some are just fine.
Brain, as a Swede, do you know any slurs for Danes? I feel like I don't even have a knife for Jacob's gunfight.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 02:57:57 PM
Guess as a white trash Southerner, just absolutely mired in a legacy of slavery and poverty, I'm just not as bright as a ball of light (and snideness).
You guess? :P
Epithets aren't good for anybody. Knock it off.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 03:10:11 PM
Brain, as a Swede, do you know any slurs for Danes? I feel like I don't even have a knife for Jacob's gunfight.
To Swedes other Scandinavians kind of fly under the radar. Swedes don't care about the opinion of Danes or Norwegians. The classic on Danes is the hospital roof scene from Lars von Trier's
Riget, but I'm not sure how well it travels. Bottom line is there's no real good nasty slur, sorry.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 02:57:57 PM
At least I'm not one of "those" either, that is sanctimonious pricks who use borderline-bigoted language to make a stupid point about how what they wrongly perceive as bigotry is bad.
You caught the irony, I see.
QuoteYeah, it'd be a real dick move if someone aggressively shut down a conversation by enforcing a rigid taxonomy of cultural traits with their loaded vocabulary and blanket condemnation, wouldn't it? Good thing I didn't do that.
You didn't shut down the conversation, that's true. As for the rest, that's what you embraced with this:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 21, 2014, 11:15:39 PM
I agree with the article.
Also I really hate multiculturalism. Some cultures are different and equal. Some are different and better. Some are different and much, much worse. And we can't have any evolution toward the ideal human culture if debate on which is which is silenced.
Quote"My culture (and the previous legal regime under which I lived) permit husbands to beat their wives."
"Your culture, despite some better qualities, sucks."
How about "wife-beating sucks, and your culture is no excuse"? That has the advantage of not implying that the members of that culture who do not beat their wives, who think it is wrong that their husbands beat them, and/or otherwise disagree with the statement are not somehow failing to uphold the cultural values that the wife-beater posits as objectively true (and you implictly embrace in your desire to oppose wife-beating). Why not keep the battle in the realm of personal abuse rather than accept turning it into a culture vs culture battle?
QuoteIt's not terribly nuanced, but it's neither prejudice nor bigotry nor establishing a "blah blah blah hierarchy" to make myself "feel better." Guess as a white trash Southerner, just absolutely mired in a legacy of slavery and poverty, I'm just not as bright as a ball of light (and snideness).
Well, it actually is "blah blah blah hierarchy", as you so eloquently summarize my point. I have not, you may wish to note, directed the terms prejudice or bigotry against you in my snide ball-of-lightness.
It's kind of funny how you think it's perfectly fine to define cultures by whatever traits you think are appropriate (culture X = wife-beating) and then objectively rank them (culture X sucks because = wife-beating; ignoring apparently all other facets of the culture), yet you get upset when someone does that to you. For the record, I do not actually hold you as an exemplar of Southern white trash culture; that was a rhetorical device. Also, for the record, if I were to describe the culture of my family - both immediate and extended - the only term that is remotely accurate is 'multi-cultural', so when you said you hate multiculturalism you made it pretty personal from the get-go.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 03:10:11 PM
Brain, as a Swede, do you know any slurs for Danes? I feel like I don't even have a knife for Jacob's gunfight.
You drew your knife first; don't get all upset when I shank you in the kidney.
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2014, 03:17:02 PM
To Swedes other Scandinavians kind of fly under the radar. Swedes don't care about the opinion of Danes or Norwegians. The classic on Danes is the hospital roof scene from Lars von Trier's Riget, but I'm not sure how well it travels. Bottom line is there's no real good nasty slur, sorry.
Yeah, it'd all be in the tone of voice and context. "Swede" is slur enough, when it comes down to it. I expect it's the same going the other way.
If a someone thinks that (to continue with our example) spousal abuse is cool, then no matter what good qualities they have (perhaps they are kind to animals), they've committed to evil. If a sizeable majority within a (somewhat arbitrarily defined group) thinks that spousal abuse is cool, then that group should be addressed. Not because it's not valuable to address the evil of the belief, but because the culture itself supports it through its norms. If that hardens the hearts of some moderates within the in-group, that's more of a tactical problem than a moral one (and if they can be swayed by group feeling like that, maybe they don't deserve a great deal of consideration in the first place).
Quote from: JacobIt's kind of funny how you think it's perfectly fine to define cultures by whatever traits you think are appropriate (culture X = wife-beating) and then objectively rank them (culture X sucks because = wife-beating; ignoring apparently all other facets of the culture), yet you get upset when someone does that to you.
That's not the same thing. It'd be a lot more the same thing if I were talking to a Saudi national and said he didn't understand my point because he's a terrorist. But I don't use such offensive language as a "rhetorical device" and neither, ordinarily, would you.
It was never my intent to personally insult you, and I think you know I have no problem with your multicultural family, and as a once and future (well, I hope not :P ) practicing miscegenationist myself, I think you also know dating and procreating outside your culture isn't what I meant.
I have a problem with legal regimes and the cultural currents that support them that stand in the way of progress to a single melted-up and morally correct culture on this planet; as noted, cultural enemies of progress include my own. I'm not certain we
disagree on this; you just don't like my framework, I think because it's too aggressive (nor do I like yours, because it can be too accommodating).
QuoteFor the record, I do not actually hold you as an exemplar of Southern white trash culture
The tab open next to this one is a Paul Krugman column. In other words, I had guessed.
Cultures are only as valuable as the way they make people act. If we have to burn a rich tapestry to ensure that people don't get abused then so be it.
I like pissy Jake much better when's he not pissy at me. As a note I broadly agree with him, here.
Jake knows I love him forever and always, but I don't like it when the left eats itself, though it does seem to be our most salient cultural trait. -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 03:52:22 PM
If a someone thinks that (to continue with our example) spousal abuse is cool, then no matter what good qualities they have (perhaps they are kind to animals), they've committed to evil. If a sizeable majority within a (somewhat arbitrarily defined group) thinks that spousal abuse is cool, then that group should be addressed. Not because it's not valuable to address the evil of the belief, but because the culture itself supports it through its norms. If that hardens the hearts of some moderates within the in-group, that's more of a tactical problem than a moral one (and if they can be swayed by group feeling like that, maybe they don't deserve a great deal of consideration in the first place).
So soon we'll have the black culture sucks as they are criminals (NAACP notes one in 6 black men have spent time in prison)...or gay culture sucks because they are HIV ridden (CDC notes 1 in 5 gay men have HIV...and half that number don't even know it).
Only 1 in 6? The school to prison pipeline clearly has a few kinks.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:49:00 PM
So soon we'll have the black culture sucks as they are criminals (NAACP notes one in 6 black men have spent time in prison)...or gay culture sucks because they are HIV ridden (CDC notes 1 in 5 gay men have HIV...and half that number don't even know it).
Does either culture encourage such activity?
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 04:50:18 PM
Only 1 in 6? The school to prison pipeline clearly has a few kinks.
They noted (at whatever time they made factsheet - their site doesn't say) that if the trend continues, one in 3 black males born today will spend some time in prison.
Black women are at 1 in 100.
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2014, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:49:00 PM
So soon we'll have the black culture sucks as they are criminals (NAACP notes one in 6 black men have spent time in prison)...or gay culture sucks because they are HIV ridden (CDC notes 1 in 5 gay men have HIV...and half that number don't even know it).
Does either culture encourage such activity?
I'm not sure how to answer that question. I suppose not more so than "American" culture encourages white collar crime?
At the same time there are certainly elements that encourage lives of crime / unprotected sex with multiple partners.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:49:00 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 03:52:22 PM
If a someone thinks that (to continue with our example) spousal abuse is cool, then no matter what good qualities they have (perhaps they are kind to animals), they've committed to evil. If a sizeable majority within a (somewhat arbitrarily defined group) thinks that spousal abuse is cool, then that group should be addressed. Not because it's not valuable to address the evil of the belief, but because the culture itself supports it through its norms. If that hardens the hearts of some moderates within the in-group, that's more of a tactical problem than a moral one (and if they can be swayed by group feeling like that, maybe they don't deserve a great deal of consideration in the first place).
So soon we'll have the black culture sucks as they are criminals (NAACP notes one in 6 black men have spent time in prison)...or gay culture sucks because they are HIV ridden (CDC notes 1 in 5 gay men have HIV...and half that number don't even know it).
Woah, seriously about the HIV?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 04:57:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:49:00 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 03:52:22 PM
If a someone thinks that (to continue with our example) spousal abuse is cool, then no matter what good qualities they have (perhaps they are kind to animals), they've committed to evil. If a sizeable majority within a (somewhat arbitrarily defined group) thinks that spousal abuse is cool, then that group should be addressed. Not because it's not valuable to address the evil of the belief, but because the culture itself supports it through its norms. If that hardens the hearts of some moderates within the in-group, that's more of a tactical problem than a moral one (and if they can be swayed by group feeling like that, maybe they don't deserve a great deal of consideration in the first place).
So soon we'll have the black culture sucks as they are criminals (NAACP notes one in 6 black men have spent time in prison)...or gay culture sucks because they are HIV ridden (CDC notes 1 in 5 gay men have HIV...and half that number don't even know it).
Woah, seriously about the HIV?
As of this 2010 Time article.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/study-20-of-homosexual-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:56:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2014, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:49:00 PM
So soon we'll have the black culture sucks as they are criminals (NAACP notes one in 6 black men have spent time in prison)...or gay culture sucks because they are HIV ridden (CDC notes 1 in 5 gay men have HIV...and half that number don't even know it).
Does either culture encourage such activity?
I'm not sure how to answer that question. I suppose not more so than "American" culture encourages white collar crime?
At the same time there are certainly elements that encourage lives of crime / unprotected sex with multiple partners.
You could have just said no.
edit: didn't intend the double meaning :blush:
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2014, 05:00:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:56:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2014, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:49:00 PM
So soon we'll have the black culture sucks as they are criminals (NAACP notes one in 6 black men have spent time in prison)...or gay culture sucks because they are HIV ridden (CDC notes 1 in 5 gay men have HIV...and half that number don't even know it).
Does either culture encourage such activity?
I'm not sure how to answer that question. I suppose not more so than "American" culture encourages white collar crime?
At the same time there are certainly elements that encourage lives of crime / unprotected sex with multiple partners.
You could have just said no.
edit: didn't intend the double meaning :blush:
I don't know - I mean what % of of muslim women are beaten by their husband and what % of muslims advocate spousal abuse?
Ignoring the next bit. :P
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:56:44 PM
I'm not sure how to answer that question. I suppose not more so than "American" culture encourages white collar crime?
At the same time there are certainly elements that encourage lives of crime / unprotected sex with multiple partners.
Are gays and blacks not Americans? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:56:44 PM
I'm not sure how to answer that question. I suppose not more so than "American" culture encourages white collar crime?
At the same time there are certainly elements that encourage lives of crime / unprotected sex with multiple partners.
Are gays and blacks not Americans? :hmm:
Quoteculture:
the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
Ok so what is "American" culture that it encourages white collar criminals that does not include the gays and blacks which are very visible and involved in the American culture I see?
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:12:08 PM
Ok so what is "American" culture that it encourages white collar criminals that does not include the gays and blacks which are very visible and involved in the American culture I see?
I very shaky on what these distinct cultural groupings are - they seem rather like useful fictions as they don't even accurately describe most of the groups they are describing (nor is group membership necessarily clear).
I'd resist using subculture as when I looked that up on wikipedia I saw pictures of Star Trek and hip-hop.
Though it seems like culture either comes out as a discussion of one groups own pop culture or when contrast how one's is superior to an inferior culture (or in the cases like American - the culture of an evil hegemony).
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 05:16:50 PM
I very shaky on what these distinct cultural groupings are - they seem rather like useful fictions as they don't even accurately describe most of the groups they are describing (nor is group membership necessarily clear).
I'd resist using subculture as when I looked that up on wikipedia I saw pictures of Star Trek and hip-hop.
Though it seems like culture either comes out as a discussion of one groups own pop culture or when contrast how one's is superior to an inferior culture (or in the cases like American - the culture of an evil hegemony).
I guess I just figure "American Culture" is the pop culture stuff and basic values and prejudices we all share, our evil hegemony if you will. Then each community has its own thing going on whether they be hippy liberals or traditional WASPs or minority religions or races or whatever.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:21:20 PM
I guess I just figure "American Culture" is the pop culture stuff and basic values and prejudices we all share
What exactly are these things and do we really all share them...and to an extent that we can see easy differentiation from other "western" cultures?
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 05:24:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:21:20 PM
I guess I just figure "American Culture" is the pop culture stuff and basic values and prejudices we all share
What exactly are these things and do we really all share them...and to an extent that we can see easy differentiation from other "western" cultures?
The pop culture stuff that is all around us. The basic assumptions about individual rights and the constitution and all that. Even if one does not agree with it or like it, you are aware of it to a degree one is not dialed into what the Sikh community in Indiana is all about. However you and the Sikh community of Indiana at least know that stuff.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:31:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 05:24:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:21:20 PM
I guess I just figure "American Culture" is the pop culture stuff and basic values and prejudices we all share
What exactly are these things and do we really all share them...and to an extent that we can see easy differentiation from other "western" cultures?
The pop culture stuff that is all around us. The basic assumptions about individual rights and the constitution and all that. Even if one does not agree with it or like it, you are aware of it to a degree one is not dialed into what the Sikh community in Indiana is all about. However you and the Sikh community of Indiana at least know that stuff.
Awareness of cultural traits = shared culture? I'm sure that's not what you mean. :D
As that would also suggest that old folks who aren't aware of latest trends are diverging into a separate culture....and if one were to study intensely another culture, that'd become yours.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 05:34:12 PM
Awareness of cultural traits = shared culture? I'm sure that's not what you mean. :D
As that would also suggest that old folks who aren't aware of latest trends are diverging into a separate culture....and if one were to study intensely another culture, that'd become yours.
Ok then. If you say so.
I will try again: the Sikh community of Indiana are American Sikhs so therefore they differ in a lot of ways from Punjabi Sikhs because they have come over here and been influenced by American culture. Do you disagree? What sort of differences do you think these might be?
They probably do a different pledge of allegiance then the ones in India.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 04:49:00 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2014, 03:52:22 PM
If a someone thinks that (to continue with our example) spousal abuse is cool, then no matter what good qualities they have (perhaps they are kind to animals), they've committed to evil. If a sizeable majority within a (somewhat arbitrarily defined group) thinks that spousal abuse is cool, then that group should be addressed. Not because it's not valuable to address the evil of the belief, but because the culture itself supports it through its norms. If that hardens the hearts of some moderates within the in-group, that's more of a tactical problem than a moral one (and if they can be swayed by group feeling like that, maybe they don't deserve a great deal of consideration in the first place).
So soon we'll have the black culture sucks as they are criminals (NAACP notes one in 6 black men have spent time in prison)...or gay culture sucks because they are HIV ridden (CDC notes 1 in 5 gay men have HIV...and half that number don't even know it).
I'm pretty sure the first is an example of white American culture sucking. Sorry. :(
Btw, is it really that high? :wacko: Anyway, I blame American culture generally on that, too, since it's American culture that prevented a reasonable test and quarantine regime when HIV entered our population.
Quote from: Jacob on April 21, 2014, 09:51:25 PM
"Big Climate enforcers"?
Steyn is a joke.
I notice you didn't say anything about this.
QuoteIn Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.
He addresses the issue (free speech in trouble) from both sides, because to sell it as a problem to both sides of the political spectrum he has to address issues that both sides have(climate change/human rights). He may have moonbat tendencies, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a point on this issue.
Was the black atheist a big climate enforcer?
Pretty damning stuff. Speak your mind and you can't have an honorary degree from Brandeis University. MAH RIGHTS :lmfao:
The feminist chick was shut down because she was dissing Islam. If he really wanted to be bipartisan, he might have brought up something like AFA boycotts.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 22, 2014, 09:25:47 PM
The feminist chick was shut down because she was dissing Islam. If he really wanted to be bipartisan, he might have brought up something like AFA boycotts.
Well, he does apparently hate Muslims.
Steyn's article is weak, but I do think pieces like his serve an important function in discussing and, yes, even critiquing where the limits of free speech begin, whether they occur on the right or left. Although all societies have speech they consider "beyond the pale" of acceptable discussion, there's a valuable function in exploring it with recent examples.
Also, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PM
Also, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
In polite societies, the university would have arranged to have said hooligans escorted out (as someone mentioned earlier). Problem solved?
Don't tase them, bro.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 11:01:07 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PM
Also, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
In polite societies, the university would have arranged to have said hooligans escorted out (as someone mentioned earlier). Problem solved?
Sure, if that's what actually happens.
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 11:51:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 11:01:07 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PM
Also, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
In polite societies, the university would have arranged to have said hooligans escorted out (as someone mentioned earlier). Problem solved?
Sure, if that's what actually happens.
Until I hear more about this epidemic of speakers on college campuses being unable to speak because of unruly mobs, I'll sleep easy.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 11:55:46 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 11:51:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 11:01:07 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PM
Also, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
In polite societies, the university would have arranged to have said hooligans escorted out (as someone mentioned earlier). Problem solved?
Sure, if that's what actually happens.
Until I hear more about this epidemic of speakers on college campuses being unable to speak because of unruly mobs, I'll sleep easy.
A wise decision.
I'm just saying I can understand if people want to be vigilant about protecting free speech but that I think this article makes a mockery of that.
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2014, 12:00:33 AM
I'm just saying I can understand if people want to be vigilant about protecting free speech but that I think this article makes a mockery of that.
Yeah, I think we can mostly agree there. Steyn's piece was mostly aimed at pandering to angry middle-class conservative emotionalism at the expense of intellectual rigor.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 11:55:46 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 11:51:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 11:01:07 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PM
Also, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
In polite societies, the university would have arranged to have said hooligans escorted out (as someone mentioned earlier). Problem solved?
Quote
Sure, if that's what actually happens.
Until I hear more about this epidemic of speakers on college campuses being unable to speak because of unruly mobs, I'll sleep easy.
The president of Brown University believes there's a problem. (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2013/11/brown_university_censorship_ray_kelly_speech_provokes_dissidence.html)
QuoteThe Right to Remain Silent
Does Brown University have a problem with free speech?
By Scott Jaschik
This article originally appeared in Inside Higher Ed.
In 2001, the Brown Daily Herald accepted an advertisement questioning the idea that black people in the United States are owed reparations. Students called the ad racist, and responded by trashing 4,000 copies of the newspaper. Brown was accused of fostering an intolerant environment, where protest of controversial ideas turns into the squelching of some views altogether.
Last month, Brown was slated to have a lecture by Ray Kelly, the New York City police commissioner and architect of the controversial "stop and frisk" approach to policing, which many see as racist. Kelly showed up, but he was interrupted so many times that he couldn't speak and the event was called off.
The students who blocked him from speaking said his views were racist and didn't deserve a forum. Many others were outraged that he couldn't give a public lecture. Brown was, once again, accused of intolerance.
One might conclude that Brown has a problem with free speech. But it's also worth noting that, both in 2001 and 2013, many students said that the protesters didn't in fact represent the majority view on campus. In 2001, many said that the anti-reparations ad was offensive, but no excuse to block distribution of a newspaper. This year, many students say that they find Ray Kelly's policing philosophy offensive, but that he was entitled to speak. (The Brown Daily Herald published a poll Wednesday suggesting that the vast majority of students feel that way, and that only 13 percent of students endorsed the idea of shutting down the lecture.)
So does Brown have a problem with free speech?
On Wednesday, Brown's new president, Christina H. Paxson, announced that she was appointing a committee to review what happened at the Kelly lecture, and to consider its broader implications. In a letter to students and faculty members, Paxson said that she has learned how personally affected many students have been by the "stop and frisk" policy that is associated with Kelly. But she said that there can be no compromise on the principle that people are entitled to express their views.
"I strongly believe that Brown must be a place that supports the free exchange of ideas, even if it means making space for points of view that are controversial or deeply upsetting," Paxson wrote. "The central mission of Brown is to discover, communicate and preserve knowledge and understanding in a spirit of free inquiry. Ideas, expressed in writing and in speech, are the basic currency of the university's work. Impeding the flow of ideas undermines Brown's ability to fulfill its mission. Making an exception to the principle of open expression jeopardizes the right of every person on this campus to speak freely and engage in open discussion. We must develop and adhere to norms of behavior that recognize the value of protest and acknowledge the imperative of the free exchange of ideas within a university."
She announced that a committee would study what happened at the aborted Kelly lecture, and how the university can ensure that speakers have a chance to make their case. She said that, once the facts are known, the university will consider whether those involved should face sanctions. She noted that the university's conduct code states, "Protest is a necessary and acceptable means of expression within the Brown community. However, protest becomes unacceptable when it obstructs the basic exchange of ideas. Such obstruction is a form of censorship, no matter who initiates it or for what reasons."
And Paxson wrote that the committee should look more broadly at the university. "[T]he committee will address the broader issues of campus climate, free expression, and dialogue across difference that have been the context for much of the discussion and activity of the last week," she wrote. "Specifically, the committee will make recommendations regarding how the university community can maintain an inclusive and supportive environment for all of our students while upholding our deep commitment to the free exchange of ideas."
Paxson won't be the first Brown president to promote discussion on the issue. In 2005, Brown's then-president, Ruth Simmons, gave a talk to kick off the spring semester in which she said she was concerned about reports she heard from students, parents, and alumni about "the lack of diversity of opinion on campus." Students had told her of a "chilling effect caused by the dominance of certain voices on the spectrum of moral and political thought," she said at the time.
Simmons not only spoke out but supported the growth of the Political Theory Project, a research center known as a home to scholars to the right of the norm at Brown, and the sponsor of lectures and events that feature a range of political views.
Praise for Paxson
Many at Brown are praising Paxson (who condemned how Kelly was denied a chance to speak on the day it happened) for giving the issue of political tolerance more attention.
Iris Bahar, professor of engineering and chair of the Faculty Executive Committee, said that she was very concerned when she heard about the Kelly lecture. "Not in my almost 18 years here do I remember something where someone was not allowed to speak," she said. "I think we need to address this as a community—and ask what we can do to make sure that this never happens again."
But Bahar does not believe that those who blocked Kelly from speaking reflect the views of most students or faculty members. "Conservative institutions love to glom on to stories like this as it shows how off the mark Brown is," but that misses the point, she said. "Brown has a liberal student body—there is no denying that. and Brown has a liberal-leaning faculty. We can't pretend otherwise." But Bahar said that, "by and large, we want to hear different opinions." She said that most of the people she knows do not support Kelly, but believe strongly that he should have been given the right to speak.
Not everyone agrees, however. Brown posted Paxson's letter on its Facebook page, where it received support—but also criticism from those who see the interruption of Kelly as a legitimate form of protest. One comment said: "A little civil disobedience (without violence) never hurt anyone. I'm proud to be an alum of a university where students visibly display their outrage at blatant abuses of power. Quite frankly, I'd be upset if they didn't."
Others who posted, meanwhile, wanted to be assured that those who disrupted the talk will be punished. "If the university doesn't hold the disruptive protesters accountable, then the code of conduct means nothing. It would be further proof that only certain speech is worth protecting at Brown, and further proof of hypocrisy."
One recent alumnus, Terrence George, praised Paxson for promoting discussion of political diversity. George graduated in May, and was the president of the university's Republican club. He said that he never expected a majority of Brown students to share his views, but that he felt confident that most students would let him and others speak.
Advertisement
Still, George said that the university does have a problem with some people being afraid to share their views. He said that throughout the time he was a Republican leader on campus, people would come up to him and tell him that they shared his views, but didn't want to be publicly known for doing so.
These "closet conservatives," he said, make him wonder about how many people might in fact differ from the prevailing political views. George said that he lost a few friends while at Brown when they learned that he was a Republican. "But people who would abandon you for that reason weren't that good friends to begin with."
An editorial in the Daily Herald backed George's points that many at Brown censor themselves because of pressure. "It is evident at this point that there is an incredibly vocal minority of students who feel compelled to shut off all streams of debate with which they disagree," the editorial said. "There is perhaps a majority of students who find themselves frustrated with with the narrow scope of debate that occurs in person or now, more than ever, on forums like Facebook. There are students—students from diverse backgrounds—who are afraid to state their opinion, and that is a profound loss for this campus.
Benjamin Wofford, a senior at Brown and co-editor-in-chief of the Brown Political Review (a nonpartisan publication), said that the Kelly incident has dominated the campus in an unusual way for the last week. "It's like this massive social experiment where thousands of students are debating one thing, day after day."
Wofford said that many students (himself included) have been receiving email from parents and others who aren't in Providence, horrified that a speaker would be prevented from talking. On campus, though, he said that there is support (but not majority support) for what the protesters did. Much of that is based on discussions where black and Latino Brown students who have themselves experienced police harassment in stop-and-frisk form have described their feelings.
While many Brown students opposed the way the protest played out, nobody on campus would think of defending Kelly, Wofford said. "It's absolutely true that almost no one I know of is publicly defending Ray Kelly or stop-and-frisk," Wofford said. "What do you draw from that? Yes it's true that one political narrative is illiberal liberalism. But I take it as something that's happened organically in a community where a significant portion of students have had this raw emotional, painful thing happen to them."
Will Creeley, director of legal and political advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that the "heckler's veto" is a problem that extends beyond Brown and needs to be forcefully opposed. He said he was pleased to see Paxson talking about the university's code of conduct.
Via email, Creeley said that "President Paxson has sent a strong and necessary message to those who would simply shut down speakers with whom they disagree. As President Paxson notes, Brown policy plainly prohibits this type of censorship. No matter how noble some students imagine their decision to censor may be, preventing a speaker from being heard violates core civil liberties principles and has no place on a university campus or in our liberal democracy."
The issue of punishing the students who blocked the talk is likely to be controversial. A Brown spokesman said that there are a "range of options" on sanctions, but that the committee needs to do its work first.
Robert M. O'Neil, professor of law emeritus at the University of Virginia and an authority on First Amendment and academic freedom issues, said that he is not certain punishments help in these situations. "It's likely to be counterproductive," he said.
More important is—if at all possible—to get a speaker who was blocked from speaking back on campus and show that the institution is committed to free speech. That would send more of a message, he said, than punishing students. The emphasis needs to be on promoting the free exchange of ideas, he said. College leaders "need creativity," he added.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2014, 01:57:36 AM
The president of Brown University believes there's a problem. (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2013/11/brown_university_censorship_ray_kelly_speech_provokes_dissidence.html)
I am sure she is thankful that it is such a small problem.
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PMAlso, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
The only times I've seen that done in my anecdotal experience is when Zionist students shouted down Palestinian speakers or anti-occupation/anti-Zionist speakers.
I used to hang around the outskirts of a small pro-Palestine demonstration in Union Square on Saturday afternoons, around the time of the Second Intifada, and saw them get repeatedly attacked: bottles and bags of garbage thrown at them, liquid thrown on them, pushed, slapped, etc. (not to mention screaming obscenities), and eventually the leader of the demo was punched in the face and knocked down, then kicked in the body while he was down. It did some damage to one of his knees.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 23, 2014, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PMAlso, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
The only times I've seen that done in my anecdotal experience is when Zionist students shouted down Palestinian speakers or anti-occupation/anti-Zionist speakers.
I used to hang around the outskirts of a small pro-Palestine demonstration in Union Square on Saturday afternoons, around the time of the Second Intifada, and saw them get repeatedly attacked: bottles and bags of garbage thrown at them, liquid thrown on them, pushed, slapped, etc. (not to mention screaming obscenities), and eventually the leader of the demo was punched in the face and knocked down, then kicked in the body while he was down. It did some damage to one of his knees.
Well that's terrible. Did the police never intervene?
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 10:20:42 AM
Well that's terrible. Did the police never intervene?
No, the one bad beatdown was over in like 20 seconds (it's amazing how quick fights are in real life, BTW), and I think the police came after. The other things were more minor, took place on various times and days, and mostly came from passersby who didn't stick around. The general mood towards anything anti-Israel was pretty unsympathetic in New York City in 2002...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 23, 2014, 03:04:27 PM
The general mood towards anything anti-Israel was pretty unsympathetic in New York City in 2002...
Well it was a weird time.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 23, 2014, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PMAlso, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
The only times I've seen that done in my anecdotal experience is when Zionist students shouted down Palestinian speakers or anti-occupation/anti-Zionist speakers.
I used to hang around the outskirts of a small pro-Palestine demonstration in Union Square on Saturday afternoons, around the time of the Second Intifada, and saw them get repeatedly attacked: bottles and bags of garbage thrown at them, liquid thrown on them, pushed, slapped, etc. (not to mention screaming obscenities), and eventually the leader of the demo was punched in the face and knocked down, then kicked in the body while he was down. It did some damage to one of his knees.
Somehow I don't think that's the sort of thing Mr. Steyn wants to publicize.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 05:57:23 PM
Somehow I don't think that's the sort of thing Mr. Steyn wants to publicize.
Because the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is full of irrational violence is a secret? Wouldn't want that one to get out!
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 06:03:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 05:57:23 PM
Somehow I don't think that's the sort of thing Mr. Steyn wants to publicize.
Because the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is full of irrational violence is a secret? Wouldn't want that one to get out!
Well some people hold that only one side is being irrationally violent, primarily driven by the fact that their position is objectively wrong and unreasonable. The other side does use force, but only when necessary.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 23, 2014, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PMAlso, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
The only times I've seen that done in my anecdotal experience is when Zionist students shouted down Palestinian speakers or anti-occupation/anti-Zionist speakers.
I used to hang around the outskirts of a small pro-Palestine demonstration in Union Square on Saturday afternoons, around the time of the Second Intifada, and saw them get repeatedly attacked: bottles and bags of garbage thrown at them, liquid thrown on them, pushed, slapped, etc. (not to mention screaming obscenities), and eventually the leader of the demo was punched in the face and knocked down, then kicked in the body while he was down. It did some damage to one of his knees.
Yeah, that's pretty terrible. :(
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 06:03:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 05:57:23 PM
Somehow I don't think that's the sort of thing Mr. Steyn wants to publicize.
Because the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is full of irrational violence is a secret? Wouldn't want that one to get out!
No cause Mr. Steyn isn't keen on Muslims.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 23, 2014, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PMAlso, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
The only times I've seen that done in my anecdotal experience is when Zionist students shouted down Palestinian speakers or anti-occupation/anti-Zionist speakers.
I used to hang around the outskirts of a small pro-Palestine demonstration in Union Square on Saturday afternoons, around the time of the Second Intifada, and saw them get repeatedly attacked: bottles and bags of garbage thrown at them, liquid thrown on them, pushed, slapped, etc. (not to mention screaming obscenities), and eventually the leader of the demo was punched in the face and knocked down, then kicked in the body while he was down. It did some damage to one of his knees.
Somehow I don't think that's the sort of thing Mr. Steyn wants to publicize.
You'd be wrong. He defends all sides right to speak whether he's keen on them or not.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2014, 08:44:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 23, 2014, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Camerus on April 22, 2014, 10:57:24 PMAlso, not all examples from the article were absurd, even if they were just anecdotal. Shouting down a speaker at a university event with obscenities doesn't strike me as acceptable, for instance.
The only times I've seen that done in my anecdotal experience is when Zionist students shouted down Palestinian speakers or anti-occupation/anti-Zionist speakers.
I used to hang around the outskirts of a small pro-Palestine demonstration in Union Square on Saturday afternoons, around the time of the Second Intifada, and saw them get repeatedly attacked: bottles and bags of garbage thrown at them, liquid thrown on them, pushed, slapped, etc. (not to mention screaming obscenities), and eventually the leader of the demo was punched in the face and knocked down, then kicked in the body while he was down. It did some damage to one of his knees.
Somehow I don't think that's the sort of thing Mr. Steyn wants to publicize.
You'd be wrong. He defends all sides right to speak whether he's keen on them or not.
That strikes me as unlikely, especially coming from Mr. Limbaugh's sit in.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2014, 08:44:36 PM
You'd be wrong. He defends all sides right to speak whether he's keen on them or not.
Link?
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2014, 02:46:13 PM
That's true & all but there's a difference between legal rights regarding speech and the concept of free speech.
How do you define the concept of free speech?
Some one who raves about the insidious influence of Muslims and the corrosiveness of "Multiculturalism" doesn't strike me as a the defender of free speech. Find me an occasion where the radical Islamist were silenced and he spoke up for them.
Quote from: Jacob on April 23, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
Well some people hold that only one side is being irrationally violent, primarily driven by the fact that their position is objectively wrong and unreasonable. The other side does use force, but only when necessary.
That may have been true at some point but both sides have had the loonies take over.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 10:01:47 PM
Some one who raves about the insidious influence of Muslims and the corrosiveness of "Multiculturalism" doesn't strike me as a the defender of free speech.
It does seem silly to worry about that sort of thing when there is absolutely no difference between different cultures except pledges of allegiances.
But anyway I do not know what sort of wackos Tim is quoting I can only respond to what he quotes them saying.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 10:16:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 23, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
Well some people hold that only one side is being irrationally violent, primarily driven by the fact that their position is objectively wrong and unreasonable. The other side does use force, but only when necessary.
That may have been true at some point but both sides have had the loonies take over.
:rolleyes: I guess if we were all like you, our irrationality would be perfectly obvious. What a privileged position you have.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 10:41:41 PM
:rolleyes: I guess if we were all like you, our irrationality would be perfectly obvious. What a privileged position you have.
I am pretty irrational. Makes it easy to spot.
Quote from: Jacob on April 23, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
Well some people hold that only one side is being irrationally violent, primarily driven by the fact that their position is objectively wrong and unreasonable. The other side does use force, but only when necessary.
I think it's fairer to say that one side's irrationality is rooted in the other side's actions over the past century.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 09:11:29 PM
That strikes me as unlikely, especially coming from Mr. Limbaugh's sit in.
I hardly think he agrees with anything that feminist aethiest has to say aside from Islam is bad, yet he defended her.
Here he is defending someone who gave a "masterly demonstration of moral turpitude and pharisaical narcissim"
http://www.steynonline.com/6079/yes-we-can-say-that
QuoteRabbi Korobkin's sin was to have "praised" Pamela Geller, the "controversial" New York blogger and anti-jihad crusader. Actually, he didn't praise her. A year or so back, he gave a masterly demonstration of "moral turpitude and pharisaical narcissism" (as David Solway put it) all about how spiffingly marvelous Islam is and what splendid chaps his two Muslim teachers at UCLA had been — and, after 15 minutes of oleaginous multiculti boosterism, said, "And now here's Pamela Geller." But Korobkin committed the crime of being in the same room as Pamela Geller, and, therefore, the prime minister of Canada should not be permitted to be in the same room as him.
Anyways, looks like things are going better in Canada then I thought. Section 13 has been repealed. Unfortunately it doesn't look like things are going so well in Australia.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/one-voice-on-free-speech/story-e6frg6z6-1226878150991#
Quote
One voice on free speech
Janet Albrechtsen
The Australian
April 09, 2014 12:00AM
AS Australia debates the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, let me introduce you to two Canadians.
One is a champion of progressive causes, the other is a staunch conservative. One played a critical role in setting up the first of the human rights commissions in Canada, the other was hauled before these same human rights commissions for writing things that caused offence to a few Muslims.
More important, though, is what unites them: a passionate and longstanding defence of free speech in a country that became increasingly comfortable with mothballing humanity's most basic human right. Both men are firmly opposed to laws that allow those pursuing identity politics to leverage the power of the state to shut down views they don't like.
Now in his 80s, Alan Borovoy, the founder of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, helped push for the creation of human rights commissions in Canada in the 1960s and 70s in his then job at Canada's Labor Committee for Human Rights. In recent years, Borovoy has also become a critic of how these commissions have overreached.
A Canadian-born writer on everything from theatre and music to politics and demography, Mark Steyn was the subject of complaints made to three human rights commissions in Canada for 18 articles he wrote about Islam in Maclean's magazine between 2005 and 2007. Those actions against Maclean's led the Canadian federal government to support a private member's bill to repeal section 13, the hate laws provision, of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
If it sounds familiar, it is. In 2011, when the Australian federal court ruled Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt was prohibited from publishing a view that contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, a similar push to defend free speech began here. In opposition, the Coalition promised to repeal section 18C. Now in government, keeping that promise is proving more difficult.
Debate in this country has become polarised between those on the Right who regard the individual right to free speech as more important than identity group rights and those on the cultural and political Left who cannot bring themselves to genuinely commit to free speech of opponents. And somewhere in the mushy middle, some Coalition members, especially in marginal seats, have gone wobbly about repealing section 18C. No matter where we sit, it's worth noting what two very different men, who both supported the repeal of Canada's section 13, have to say.
First, some background. Why did Canada, a country with a long history of political correctness cemented into its laws, repeal its federal hate law? Borovoy told The Australian that human rights commissions started falling into disrepute: "I don't like quoting Karl Marx with such approval," he laughs down the phone from Canada, "but the legislation (that set up the HRCs) contains the seeds of its own destruction."
Whereas HRCs started out applying fairly well-defined prohibitions against certain types of discrimination, when hate laws became part of their ambit, and hurt feelings became the measurement of laws, it turned into a "very risky ball game", says Borovoy. "You are running a terrible risk that someone's thin skin could be the limit of someone else's free speech."
Sure enough, Borovoy says, human rights commissions overreached in very public cases. Steyn agrees: "No one minded this stuff when it was just being applied to some Holocaust denier sitting in his bedsit writing some unread screed that he was Xeroxing and sending out to his friends.
"But when those same laws are suddenly being applied to Maclean's magazine — it's mainstream, it's big-selling, it's the dentist's waiting-room magazine; Maclean's magazine is basically analogous to Andrew Bolt's Herald Sun — then people here went 'Wow, this is crazy stuff'." Borovoy says that defining what is hate speech became an impossible task. While he would have taken a different position about laws that targeted incitement of imminent violence, " 'hatred' was too fraught with ambiguity".
And Borovoy warns that the same ambiguities arise from our legislation that uses words like "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate".
Drawing on Canada's experience, Borovoy says: "You wind up losing a lot more than you're trying to nail. That's the guts of it." Steyn agrees. And he warns that you can't be a little bit pregnant on this. "You can't say we are going to take out 'offended' (from section 18C) but keep 'humiliated' ... You've got to say this kind of emotional lawmaking is not law — it's phony law, it's ersatz law, it's pseudo law." While Borovoy says the Left "didn't surface very hard to try to rescue section 13", Steyn says you have to distinguish between the cultural Left and the political Left.
Left-wing newspapers and novelists eventually became offended by the reach of the federal hate law when it started to impinge on their rights. Steyn recalls one of the complaints against him involved a book review he wrote where he discussed fictional characters in a novel. "The novelists didn't like that," he laughs.
But he is scathing of the political Left's opposition to repealing section 13. He notes one exception, Liberal MP Keith Martin, who describes himself as the "brown guy", meaning a person of colour. "Martin was the only member of the Liberal Party caucus who took a principled political stand in favour of freedom of expression." Steyn says Martin was mocked and jeered: "Why are you — the so-called 'brown guy' — getting into bed with not only extremist right-wing nutters like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, but also a bunch of anti-Semites and white supremacists?"
Alas, the point of free speech is not that the brown guy and the white supremacist are on the same side. As Steyn says, "It's that the brown guy recognises that the white supremacist is allowed to have his own side. Nobody needs freedom of speech for people we agree with.
"He (Martin) was the only Liberal member of the House of Commons to say this is crazy stuff, we shouldn't live in a world where, if you disagree with a newspaper columnist, it becomes a court case," Steyn says.
Steyn then makes a point aimed squarely at our debate in Australia: "You always need a couple of individuals like that to break the institutional position which says we need these laws, that without these laws there will be jackboots marching up and down the highway."
That argument was made in Canada. It is also made in Australia, as critics of the Abbott government describe repealing section 18C as a fillip for bigots and a retrograde step for human rights.
But where are those brave individuals? Is there just one Labor MP with a genuine commitment to free speech? Where are the cultural warriors on the Left willing to defend Bolt's right to free speech? Where is our own Borovoy, a man who understands that "freedom of expression is the grievance procedure of the democratic system"?
While we wait for intellectually honest members of the Left to emerge, Steyn says we must also relentlessly push back against the jackboot bigotry claims. "You have to say 'You're insulting Australians', just as we said: 'You're insulting Canadians saying that.' We're not people who have a dark, fascist totalitarian past — Canada and Australia are two of the oldest, settled, constitutional societies on earth. They haven't gone through third empires and fourth republics, and all the other stuff. People can be trusted to decide for themselves."
A frequent visitor to Australia, and due here later this year, Steyn has watched with disappointment the debate over section 18C. He says that Canada's cultural Left eventually supported the repeal of section 13 in a way he thought would be repeated here. "They said, 'Well, obviously we find Steyn a totally disgusting and repulsive figure and we want to emphasise how much we dissociate ourselves from him BUT this is not compatible with a free society and Canadians should be able to decide for themselves on these matters'.
"I thought it would go that way with Andrew Bolt. That people would say, 'Well, Bolt is a repellent creature BUT ...' Yet from my understanding from the debate in Australia no one on the Left has got to the BUT." Sadly, Steyn is right that, for ever larger groups on the Left, identity group rights trump the rights of freedom of expression.
Once the campaign in Canada to repeal section 13 had won over the people, only then did politicians feel comfortable in following. Steyn says free speech is not something people demonstrate in the streets over. "It's not one of those visceral issues. It can seem dry and abstract. The success we had was that by the end it didn't seem dry and abstract. It seemed real and something with practical consequences."
In Canada, the defenders of free speech also succeeded by turning the tables on the Left. Steyn praises Ezra Levant, another writer hauled before a human rights commission, for the strategy.
"The Left tried to de-normalise us, to marginalise us," he recalls. Levant and others succeeded on putting those who supported the laws — who were, by and large, part of the establishment, people appointed to HRCs, people who wore Orders of Canada on their lapels — on the defensive. The debate was won by arguing the hate laws were not needed.
"The success we had in Canada was in putting those in favour of the law on the defensive — making them look like the weirdos and the control freaks and against genuine human rights."
Steyn says that's where the meter must move in Australia, too. "I might have to fly in and do it myself," he says, pointing out the ridiculous irony in a group of establishment grievance mongers thinking they are vulnerable if contrarian columnists can say what they want about them. "The idea that they represent a state ideology that should be protected from criticism ought to be absolutely repulsive to people."
So, has Canada become a haven for bigots without section 13? Of course not. Which makes the retreat by some Coalition MPs even more disappointing. While Steyn understands that Coalition MPs are worried about being depicted as anti-human rights, he, too, laments that "on the squishy Right there is a fear that identity group rights are more fashionable and you risk making yourself look like an old squaresville if you get hung up on free speech".
And that's the real danger in Australia. Between a Left that is utterly indifferent to free speech and an opportunist, unprincipled Right, there are not a lot of people willing to take a stand for free speech these days.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 01:52:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 09:11:29 PM
That strikes me as unlikely, especially coming from Mr. Limbaugh's sit in.
I hardly think he agrees with anything that feminist aethiest has to say aside from Islam is bad, yet he defended her.
Here he is defending someone who gave a "masterly demonstration of moral turpitude and pharisaical narcissim"
http://www.steynonline.com/6079/yes-we-can-say-that (http://www.steynonline.com/6079/yes-we-can-say-that)
QuoteRabbi Korobkin's sin was to have "praised" Pamela Geller, the "controversial" New York blogger and anti-jihad crusader. Actually, he didn't praise her. A year or so back, he gave a masterly demonstration of "moral turpitude and pharisaical narcissism" (as David Solway put it) all about how spiffingly marvelous Islam is and what splendid chaps his two Muslim teachers at UCLA had been — and, after 15 minutes of oleaginous multiculti boosterism, said, "And now here's Pamela Geller." But Korobkin committed the crime of being in the same room as Pamela Geller, and, therefore, the prime minister of Canada should not be permitted to be in the same room as him.
He's defending someone who was attacked for being to close to noted Muslim hater. :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on April 23, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2014, 06:03:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 05:57:23 PM
Somehow I don't think that's the sort of thing Mr. Steyn wants to publicize.
Because the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is full of irrational violence is a secret? Wouldn't want that one to get out!
Well some people hold that only one side is being irrationally violent, primarily driven by the fact that their position is objectively wrong and unreasonable. The other side does use force, but only when necessary.
Everyone involved agrees on that.
Only, no-one agrees which side is which. :lol:
My take on Mr. Steyn:
(1) "Free speech" = freedom from government repression over speech, not freedom from bad consequences in general from speech.
OTOH,
(2) "Civility" = the notion that it is unacceptable to shout down or boycott others over the content of their speech.
What is at issue here is not "free speech", but a breakdown in "civility". One aspect of this is shouting down and boycotting others. Another aspect of this is demonizing fellow citizens as morally corrupt enemies. Both left and right are guilty of corroding standards of civility - the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them, the right to lunatic theories about the alleged moral corruption of those who displease them. Naturally, Mr. Steyn, being on the right, has more to say about the former than the latter.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 01:52:44 AM
I hardly think he agrees with anything that feminist aethiest has to say aside from Islam is bad, yet he defended her.
... he defended her when she experienced negative consequences from attacking Islam, a position Steyn embraces.
Quote from: Malthus on April 24, 2014, 08:03:38 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 23, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
Well some people hold that only one side is being irrationally violent, primarily driven by the fact that their position is objectively wrong and unreasonable. The other side does use force, but only when necessary.
Everyone involved agrees on that.
Only, no-one agrees which side is which. :lol:
Indeed.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 07:55:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 01:52:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2014, 09:11:29 PM
That strikes me as unlikely, especially coming from Mr. Limbaugh's sit in.
I hardly think he agrees with anything that feminist aethiest has to say aside from Islam is bad, yet he defended her.
Here he is defending someone who gave a "masterly demonstration of moral turpitude and pharisaical narcissim"
http://www.steynonline.com/6079/yes-we-can-say-that (http://www.steynonline.com/6079/yes-we-can-say-that)
QuoteRabbi Korobkin's sin was to have "praised" Pamela Geller, the "controversial" New York blogger and anti-jihad crusader. Actually, he didn't praise her. A year or so back, he gave a masterly demonstration of "moral turpitude and pharisaical narcissism" (as David Solway put it) all about how spiffingly marvelous Islam is and what splendid chaps his two Muslim teachers at UCLA had been — and, after 15 minutes of oleaginous multiculti boosterism, said, "And now here's Pamela Geller." But Korobkin committed the crime of being in the same room as Pamela Geller, and, therefore, the prime minister of Canada should not be permitted to be in the same room as him.
He's defending someone who was attacked for being to close to noted Muslim hater. :huh:
He's still defending a political enemy.
I couldn't find any evidence either way of him defending or failing to defend a leftist over an issue unrelated to religion. From what I've seen the left wing is not often censured on such things.
I did try and searched several pages of google but anything useful must be buried deep.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 08:02:08 PM
I did try and searched several pages of google but anything useful must be buried deep.
Or doesn't exist. :hmm:
Tim....search? SHOCKA
He "failed to defend" CDM over the bag of fetuses comment.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 08:02:08 PM
He's still defending a political enemy.
I couldn't find any evidence either way of him defending or failing to defend a leftist over an issue unrelated to religion. From what I've seen the left wing is not often censured on such things.
I did try and searched several pages of google but anything useful must be buried deep.
When they agree with him! :lol: Steyn's a Jew, so you'd think understand he a historical constant. If you fan the flames of hate eventually the fire will spread to a synagogue.
Quote from: Malthus on April 24, 2014, 08:11:29 AM
the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them
Some posters took great umbrage when i made a similar point a while back.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2014, 09:18:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 24, 2014, 08:11:29 AM
the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them
Some posters took great umbrage when i made a similar point a while back.
Perhaps it was how your phrased it.
Quote from: Malthus on April 24, 2014, 08:11:29 AM
My take on Mr. Steyn:
(1) "Free speech" = freedom from government repression over speech, not freedom from bad consequences in general from speech.
OTOH,
(2) "Civility" = the notion that it is unacceptable to shout down or boycott others over the content of their speech.
What is at issue here is not "free speech", but a breakdown in "civility". One aspect of this is shouting down and boycotting others. Another aspect of this is demonizing fellow citizens as morally corrupt enemies. Both left and right are guilty of corroding standards of civility - the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them, the right to lunatic theories about the alleged moral corruption of those who displease them. Naturally, Mr. Steyn, being on the right, has more to say about the former than the latter.
Well said, that is more about what we are talking about here.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 08:02:08 PM
He's still defending a political enemy.
I couldn't find any evidence either way of him defending or failing to defend a leftist over an issue unrelated to religion. From what I've seen the left wing is not often censured on such things.
I did try and searched several pages of google but anything useful must be buried deep.
When they agree with him! :lol: Steyn's a Jew, so you'd think understand he a historical constant. If you fan the flames of hate eventually the fire will spread to a synagogue.
Fanatics do not defend enemies even when they agree with them. Often times that just gets an even harsher response.
Obama adopted the republican health care plan. Did the GOP tumpet it's victory in the marketplace of ideas? Of course not. They abandoned the idea and attacked it as a communist monstrosity.
You behave the same way Raz. When derspeiss or someone you label the enemy agress with a political position you hold you aren't pleased they've seen the light. On the contrary you go on the attack, attacking their motives and attempting to prove that they don't really agree with you.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 11:17:05 PM
Fanatics do not defend enemies even when they agree with them. Often times that just gets an even harsher response.
Obama adopted the republican health care plan. Did the GOP tumpet it's victory in the marketplace of ideas? Of course not. They abanded the idea and attacked it as a communist monstrosity.
You behave the same way Raz. When derspeiss or someone you label the enemy agress with a political position you hold you aren't pleased they've seen the light. On the contrary you go on the attack, attacking their motives and attempting to prove that they don't really agree with you.
This is nonsense. First nobody said he was a fanatic, second, you statements about fanatics aren't even true. I can find many examples of fanatical people who said nice things about their enemies when faced a greater threat. Churchill praised the Soviet Union despite being an ardent anticommunist while they were fighting the Germans. And thirdly, I argue with derspeiss because I'm hard to get along with.
I Find you delightful Raz.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 24, 2014, 08:42:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 08:02:08 PM
I did try and searched several pages of google but anything useful must be buried deep.
Or doesn't exist. :hmm:
Since I searched for two diametrically opposed options, evidence for one must exist.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 11:17:05 PMFanatics do not defend enemies even when they agree with them. Often times that just gets an even harsher response.
Obama adopted the republican health care plan. Did the GOP tumpet it's victory in the marketplace of ideas? Of course not. They abanded the idea and attacked it as a communist monstrosity.
Maybe they changed their mind.
I mean the GOP proposal that looked like Obamacare was made in the mid-90s, I think Bob Dole was the guy behind it. Maybe, in 15 years, the views of the GOP and the conservative movement shifted? I don't think there's much reason to attack their motives like this (the lack of a current GOP alternative to Obamacare is stronger ground in my view).
Mitt Romney was running for the GOP nomination in 2008 trumpeting his health care plan (identical to Obamacare) as his crowning achievement. It wasn't until Obama adopted it that the GOP turned against the idea.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 25, 2014, 01:05:00 AM
Mitt Romney was running for the GOP nomination in 2008 trumpeting his health care plan (identical to Obamacare) as his crowning achievement. It wasn't until Obama adopted it that the GOP turned against the idea.
Oh if we're bitching about Romney then that's fine I agree with you. But he's shallower than a puddle and hasn't had a single consistent belief or ideology in his career.
But he was also attacked for it in 2008, especially by McCain and the right whose policy was basically vouchers. There was no-one but Romney in the GOP in 2008 pushing for something like Obamacare. And Romney lost.
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2014, 11:07:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 24, 2014, 08:11:29 AM
My take on Mr. Steyn:
(1) "Free speech" = freedom from government repression over speech, not freedom from bad consequences in general from speech.
OTOH,
(2) "Civility" = the notion that it is unacceptable to shout down or boycott others over the content of their speech.
What is at issue here is not "free speech", but a breakdown in "civility". One aspect of this is shouting down and boycotting others. Another aspect of this is demonizing fellow citizens as morally corrupt enemies. Both left and right are guilty of corroding standards of civility - the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them, the right to lunatic theories about the alleged moral corruption of those who displease them. Naturally, Mr. Steyn, being on the right, has more to say about the former than the latter.
Well said, that is more about what we are talking about here.
To my mind, I prefer a society in which civil discourse is the norm, even for abhorent views, so stuff like what Mr. Steyn is complaining about has a certain amount of traction - but he's pushing the wrong button here when he's complaining about a threat to "free speech".
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2014, 11:07:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 24, 2014, 08:11:29 AM
My take on Mr. Steyn:
(1) "Free speech" = freedom from government repression over speech, not freedom from bad consequences in general from speech.
OTOH,
(2) "Civility" = the notion that it is unacceptable to shout down or boycott others over the content of their speech.
What is at issue here is not "free speech", but a breakdown in "civility". One aspect of this is shouting down and boycotting others. Another aspect of this is demonizing fellow citizens as morally corrupt enemies. Both left and right are guilty of corroding standards of civility - the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them, the right to lunatic theories about the alleged moral corruption of those who displease them. Naturally, Mr. Steyn, being on the right, has more to say about the former than the latter.
Well said, that is more about what we are talking about here.
To my mind, I prefer a society in which civil discourse is the norm, even for abhorent views, so stuff like what Mr. Steyn is complaining about has a certain amount of traction - but he's pushing the wrong button here when he's complaining about a threat to "free speech".
But those movements lead to laws that infringe on free speech. Just look at what happened in Canada and Australia. Now thankfully the law in Canada was repealed, but the movement to do so in Australia seems to have sputtered.
The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.
The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2014, 10:21:02 AM
The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.
The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.
Maybe. But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing. I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:25:53 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2014, 10:21:02 AM
The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.
The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.
Maybe. But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing. I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.
We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society. Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:31:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:25:53 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2014, 10:21:02 AM
The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.
The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.
Maybe. But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing. I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.
We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society. Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.
Completely untrue. It was illegal to advocate abolition in half the country for decades. "Obscenity" was harshly censored for far longer than that.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:31:26 AM
We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society. Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.
Do you think this is healthy & should continue?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 25, 2014, 09:40:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2014, 11:07:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 24, 2014, 08:11:29 AM
My take on Mr. Steyn:
(1) "Free speech" = freedom from government repression over speech, not freedom from bad consequences in general from speech.
OTOH,
(2) "Civility" = the notion that it is unacceptable to shout down or boycott others over the content of their speech.
What is at issue here is not "free speech", but a breakdown in "civility". One aspect of this is shouting down and boycotting others. Another aspect of this is demonizing fellow citizens as morally corrupt enemies. Both left and right are guilty of corroding standards of civility - the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them, the right to lunatic theories about the alleged moral corruption of those who displease them. Naturally, Mr. Steyn, being on the right, has more to say about the former than the latter.
Well said, that is more about what we are talking about here.
To my mind, I prefer a society in which civil discourse is the norm, even for abhorent views, so stuff like what Mr. Steyn is complaining about has a certain amount of traction - but he's pushing the wrong button here when he's complaining about a threat to "free speech".
But those movements lead to laws that infringe on free speech. Just look at what happened in Canada and Australia. Now thankfully the law in Canada was repealed, but the movement to do so in Australia seems to have sputtered.
The effect of such laws has been vastly overstated. In reality, they had far less effect on actual behavior than the civility-type stuff, even when they existed.
I do not accept that this is a "slippery slope". Decline in civility is a problem because of decline in civility, not because 'the feminazis will create government speech crime tribunals'.
The US has an amazing all-or-nothing approach to free speech in law, but has been discussed ad nauseum here, the actual 'freedom of speech' in the US is and was not markedly greater than in Canada, even when Canada had section whatever enacted. Its actual practical effect on chilling free speech was near zero. Of far greater concern is the trend on having people fired for saying things obnoxious - even though that has nothing to do with "free speech". That has orders of magnitude greater chilling effect - and it seems more prevelant in the US than Canada.
Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2014, 10:34:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:31:26 AM
We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society. Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.
Do you think this is healthy & should continue?
It's not something that can be prevented. Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children. I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it". Guess what? You ain't gone to get the job. You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 25, 2014, 10:34:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:31:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:25:53 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2014, 10:21:02 AM
The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.
The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.
Maybe. But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing. I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.
We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society. Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.
Completely untrue. It was illegal to advocate abolition in half the country for decades. "Obscenity" was harshly censored for far longer than that.
That doesn't disprove what I said in the least. Stop being an idiot.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:25:53 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2014, 10:21:02 AM
The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.
The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.
Maybe. But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing. I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.
People are more afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined because of the decline in civility, than because of Canadian/Australian 'hate speech panels'.
In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 10:37:46 AM
The US has an amazing all-or-nothing approach to free speech in law, but has been discussed ad nauseum here, the actual 'freedom of speech' in the US is and was not markedly greater than in Canada, even when Canada had section whatever enacted. Its actual practical effect on chilling free speech was near zero. Of far greater concern is the trend on having people fired for saying things obnoxious - even though that has nothing to do with "free speech". That has orders of magnitude greater chilling effect - and it seems more prevelant in the US than Canada.
Yeah, I would also add the chilling effect of our defamation laws.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:31:26 AM
We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society. Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.
Nonsense. Before the internet we could not dig up what somebody said or did 10 years ago and use it to destroy their lives today nearly as easily. And good on you if you never speak an unpopular opinion during your entire life but that is not most of us.
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 10:41:08 AM
People are more afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined because of the decline in civility, than because of Canadian/Australian 'hate speech panels'.
In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.
Yeah the civility thing is a big deal to me. The censorship and garbage that Australia does are obnoxious but are actually less terrifying.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:38:36 AM
It's not something that can be prevented. Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children. I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it". Guess what? You ain't gone to get the job. You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.
That's a rather extreme example.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:31:26 AM
We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society. Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.
Nonsense and bullshit. Before the internet we could not dig up what somebody said or did 10 years ago and use it to destroy their lives today nearly as easily. And good on you if you never speak an unpopular opinion during your entire life but that is not most of us.
Why does one require the internet to be held accountable for taking an unpopular opinion? It wouldn't take much searching of the internet to find cases of that happening when the internet did not exist.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:25:53 AMMaybe. But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing. I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.
By exceptional I mean 'very different' :P
From what I can tell the columnist's not had his livelihood ruined. In fact it looks like he's profited quite a lot from becoming a cause celebre. Unlike English law which has a criminal offence about this, Australian law just creates a civil option for complainants. Looking up cases most are settled through conciliation (only 3% go to a trial) and the settlements include things like 'visiting an Aborigine community centre' as well as money.
The Australian law does also include this exemption:
QuoteSection 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:31:26 AM
We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society. Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.
Nonsense and bullshit. Before the internet we could not dig up what somebody said or did 10 years ago and use it to destroy their lives today nearly as easily. And good on you if you never speak an unpopular opinion during your entire life but that is not most of us.
Technology only makes it easier to find old statements. Expressing unpopular opinions still carried risk of social sanctions before the internet.
Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2014, 10:34:26 AMDo you think this is healthy & should continue?
Probably. I think without social norms about what you can and can't say the entire world would be like the worst of Reddit.
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 10:37:46 AM
The US has an amazing all-or-nothing approach to free speech in law, but has been discussed ad nauseum here, the actual 'freedom of speech' in the US is and was not markedly greater than in Canada, even when Canada had section whatever enacted. Its actual practical effect on chilling free speech was near zero. Of far greater concern is the trend on having people fired for saying things obnoxious - even though that has nothing to do with "free speech". That has orders of magnitude greater chilling effect - and it seems more prevelant in the US than Canada.
I totally agree.
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 10:41:08 AM
In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.
You are correct.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 10:44:28 AM
Why does one require the internet to be held accountable for taking an unpopular opinion? It would take much searching of the internet to find cases of that happening when the internet did not exist.
Because private information was a lot more private back then? Sure back in the day if you were stupid enough to get something published in a major newspaper or something or recorded by some big media outlet that was bad. But this is a totally new thing entirely.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 10:47:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 10:41:08 AM
In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.
You are correct.
Odd you seem to eager to support doing that if it is illegal in your own country.
Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2014, 10:44:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:38:36 AM
It's not something that can be prevented. Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children. I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it". Guess what? You ain't gone to get the job. You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.
That's a rather extreme example.
It serves the point though. It is an unpopular opinion and a person who expressed it would be treated differently, almost certainly negatively most people.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2014, 10:46:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 10:37:46 AM
The US has an amazing all-or-nothing approach to free speech in law, but has been discussed ad nauseum here, the actual 'freedom of speech' in the US is and was not markedly greater than in Canada, even when Canada had section whatever enacted. Its actual practical effect on chilling free speech was near zero. Of far greater concern is the trend on having people fired for saying things obnoxious - even though that has nothing to do with "free speech". That has orders of magnitude greater chilling effect - and it seems more prevelant in the US than Canada.
I totally agree.
Yes indeed. The issue I am talking about is a social problem not a legal one.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:47:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 10:44:28 AM
Why does one require the internet to be held accountable for taking an unpopular opinion? It would take much searching of the internet to find cases of that happening when the internet did not exist.
Because private information was a lot more private back then? Sure back in the day if you were stupid enough to get something published in a major newspaper or something or recorded by some big media outlet that was bad. But this is a totally new thing entirely.
I am pretty sure that when Raz is talking about people taking an unpopular position - they are doing so publicly and not speaking to themselves. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:47:59 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 10:47:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 10:41:08 AM
In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.
You are correct.
Odd you seem to eager to support doing that if it is illegal in your own country.
Are you off your meds today Valmy? If not, wtf are you talking about?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2014, 10:44:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:38:36 AM
It's not something that can be prevented. Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children. I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it". Guess what? You ain't gone to get the job. You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.
That's a rather extreme example.
It serves the point though. It is an unpopular opinion and a person who expressed it would be treated differently, almost certainly negatively most people.
Actually no. The point would be you interview, get the job, and then later somebody finds a post on Languish where you said that back in 2005 and it creates a shitstorm that leads to you getting fired.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 10:50:10 AM
Are you off your meds today Valmy? If not, wtf are you talking about?
What do you mean WTF am I talking about? Um you were the guy who shrugged all this off as 'being held accountable'.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:50:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2014, 10:44:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:38:36 AM
It's not something that can be prevented. Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children. I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it". Guess what? You ain't gone to get the job. You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.
That's a rather extreme example.
It serves the point though. It is an unpopular opinion and a person who expressed it would be treated differently, almost certainly negatively most people.
Actually no. The point would be you interview, get the job, and then later somebody finds a post on Languish where you said that back in 2005 and it creates a shitstorm that leads to you getting fired.
No. The principle is the same. I stated that unpopular opinions always carried the risk of social sanction. This is true. You disagreed with me because now there is an internet. Internet only makes easier find old statements, it does not change the fact that other people could still find out about your opinions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 10:49:22 AM
I am pretty sure that when Raz is talking about people taking an unpopular position - they are doing so publicly and not speaking to themselves. ;)
But it is not necessary to do so publicly. To do so privately is a problem because there is a great deal less privacy. Which makes this issue far more serious than before when so long as you showed a reasonable amount of discretion you were generally ok.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 10:52:15 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 10:50:10 AM
Are you off your meds today Valmy? If not, wtf are you talking about?
What do you mean WTF am I talking about? Um you were the guy who shrugged all this off as 'being held accountable'.
Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions in the public domain. So I ask again, what are you on about?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 11:03:29 AM
Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions in the public domain. So I ask again, what are you on about?
Um what I am obviously on about. That, that opinion of yours. So you disagree with the Canadian laws in this respect? There is probably a good reason the laws provide this protection.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:56:19 AM
No. The principle is the same. I stated that unpopular opinions always carried the risk of social sanction. This is true. You disagreed with me because now there is an internet. Internet only makes easier find old statements, it does not change the fact that other people could still find out about your opinions.
I meant to say it is different now because of the internet. Also certain social constraints have dropped off a bit. It would have been considered unseemly to steal a private letter in the past.
I mean sure I would prefer we lived in a country where printing anti-slavery pamphlets 170 years ago did not result in your house burned down by an angry mob as well. It seems to me we are now going over a threshold into dangerous territory.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 11:05:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 11:03:29 AM
Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions in the public domain. So I ask again, what are you on about?
Um what I am obviously on about. That, that opinion of yours. So you disagree with the Canadian laws in this respect?
How? Malthus pointed out that an employer would likely not have cause to terminate an employee for something they believed - and that is entirely true. But if an employee makes a public statement regarding that belief and the statement causes damage to the reputation of the employer then the employer would have a very strong case to terminate for cause.
Even if the employer did not terminate for cause an employer could still lawfully terminate such an employee pursuant to the terms of their contract of employment.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2014, 11:10:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2014, 10:56:19 AM
No. The principle is the same. I stated that unpopular opinions always carried the risk of social sanction. This is true. You disagreed with me because now there is an internet. Internet only makes easier find old statements, it does not change the fact that other people could still find out about your opinions.
I meant to say it is different now because of the internet. Also certain social constraints have dropped off a bit. It would have been considered unseemly to steal a private letter in the past.
I mean sure I would prefer we lived in a country where printing anti-slavery pamphlets 170 years ago did not result in your house burned down by an angry mob as well. It seems to me we are now going over a threshold into dangerous territory.
Actually now a days we have much better fidelity and accuracy on past statements. In the past rumors and gossip could easily damage a man, and often did. So you could easily be ostracized by what people had thought you said rather then what you actually said.
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 10:41:08 AM
In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.
Really? My understanding was that "just cause" simply allowed one to be fired without notice or compensation. Can a terminated employee (who receives proper notice or compensation) really sue for termination if the employer cannot, in addition, provide "just cause?"
If he or she can, then your point is apt. If he or she cannot, then your point is invalid.
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2014, 12:54:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 10:41:08 AM
In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.
Really? My understanding was that "just cause" simply allowed one to be fired without notice or compensation. Can a terminated employee (who receives proper notice or compensation) really sue for termination if the employer cannot, in addition, provide "just cause?"
If he or she can, then your point is apt. If he or she cannot, then your point is invalid.
You are correct, but I do not understand why you say this undermines my point - which is that the employer would be sued if he
alleged "just cause" when he did not, in fact, have "just cause". Naturally, an employer could just pay up and avoid being sued.
If an employee in an "at will" state says or believes something his or her employer finds obnoxious, they can be terminated and the employer doesn't have to pay anything; if in a "just cause" jurisdiction, assuming always what the employer said didn't itself form a basis for 'just cause', the employer would be on the hook for paying compensation - which could be substantial, depending on how the employee is situated. The 'rule of thumb' I've heard is one month per year employed, but this is not my area and I defer to guys like CC who know it - in any event, it can be a lot of money (enough to be worth litigating over).
Therefore, it is easier, in that it has less costs, terminating an employee where you don't have to pay to do so, then where you do. I'm not sure why this is controversial. No doubt you will enlighten me on that point.
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 01:10:04 PM
You are correct, but I do not understand why you say this undermines my point - which is that the employer would be sued if he alleged "just cause" when he did not, in fact, have "just cause". Naturally, an employer could just pay up and avoid being sued.
If an employee in an "at will" state says or believes something his or her employer finds obnoxious, they can be terminated and the employer doesn't have to pay anything; if in a "just cause" jurisdiction, assuming always what the employer said didn't itself form a basis for 'just cause', the employer would be on the hook for paying compensation - which could be substantial, depending on how the employee is situated. The 'rule of thumb' I've heard is one month per year employed, but this is not my area and I defer to guys like CC who know it - in any event, it can be a lot of money (enough to be worth litigating over).
Therefore, it is easier, in that it has less costs, terminating an employee where you don't have to pay to do so, then where you do. I'm not sure why this is controversial. No doubt you will enlighten me on that point.
Your argument was that an employee terminated n Canada for distasteful speech could sue his employer for lack of "just cause," and I am pointing out that you are incorrect. The employer deciding to terminate for distasteful speech would have to give notice in Canada while he
may not have to in the US, but the distinction isn't that significant given that many jobs in the US have contracts stipulating just what Canadian law requires. I've always had such a contract with such a clause, for instance.
I read Malthus' statement as meaning that if an employee in Canada was terminated for just cause for what they believed the employee would likely succeed in a case for wrongful dismissal as it is very likely such an allegation of cause would ever succeed. If that is what he meant he is correct. Grumbler is also correct that any employer can terminate a contract pursuant to its terms without having to allege cause. I dont think the two of you are disagreeing.
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2014, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 01:10:04 PM
You are correct, but I do not understand why you say this undermines my point - which is that the employer would be sued if he alleged "just cause" when he did not, in fact, have "just cause". Naturally, an employer could just pay up and avoid being sued.
If an employee in an "at will" state says or believes something his or her employer finds obnoxious, they can be terminated and the employer doesn't have to pay anything; if in a "just cause" jurisdiction, assuming always what the employer said didn't itself form a basis for 'just cause', the employer would be on the hook for paying compensation - which could be substantial, depending on how the employee is situated. The 'rule of thumb' I've heard is one month per year employed, but this is not my area and I defer to guys like CC who know it - in any event, it can be a lot of money (enough to be worth litigating over).
Therefore, it is easier, in that it has less costs, terminating an employee where you don't have to pay to do so, then where you do. I'm not sure why this is controversial. No doubt you will enlighten me on that point.
Your argument was that an employee terminated n Canada for distasteful speech could sue his employer for lack of "just cause," and I am pointing out that you are incorrect. The employer deciding to terminate for distasteful speech would have to give notice in Canada while he may not have to in the US, but the distinction isn't that significant given that many jobs in the US have contracts stipulating just what Canadian law requires. I've always had such a contract with such a clause, for instance.
Then you misunderstood what I was saying, as CC pointed out to you. And, as usual, you are now doubling down on that misunderstanding, despite my carefully explaining it to you. Good luck with that. :)
The only area of legitimate disagreement is whether having a "just cause" system is a significant distinction. You claim it isn't, because so many people have nice contracts, and I doubt you are correct. I'd require a greater sample than one to make that determination, though.
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2014, 02:56:40 PM
Then you misunderstood what I was saying, as CC pointed out to you. And, as usual, you are now doubling down on that misunderstanding, despite my carefully explaining it to you. Good luck with that. :)
I understood what you said (after you clarified that my understanding was, in fact, correct, and yours was not). Good luck with now trying to say that my clarification of the issue was unnecessary.
QuoteThe only area of legitimate disagreement is whether having a "just cause" system is a significant distinction. You claim it isn't, because so many people have nice contracts, and I doubt you are correct. I'd require a greater sample than one to make that determination, though.
Your point was that there was a significant distinction between the US and Canada in this regard, and my point was that there probably is not. The burden of proof is not on me. Good luck trying to shift it to me. :D
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2014, 03:24:45 PM
I understood what you said (after you clarified that my understanding was, in fact, correct, and yours was not). Good luck with now trying to say that my clarification of the issue was unnecessary.
Wait, my understanding of what *I* said was incorrect? :hmm: :lmfao:
Now, that's chutzpah.
QuoteYour point was that there was a significant distinction between the US and Canada in this regard, and my point was that there probably is not. The burden of proof is not on me. Good luck trying to shift it to me. :D
Simple. "At will" employment doesn't require cause by definition - does this really require proof? You claim that enough people have contracts that vary that, so that the actual default rule isn't significant. You cite yourself as evidence. I'm afraid you can't just claim this, with no better evidence, and be persuasive. You can try, of course.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 02:30:37 PM
I read Malthus' statement as meaning that if an employee in Canada was terminated for just cause for what they believed the employee would likely succeed in a case for wrongful dismissal as it is very likely such an allegation of cause would ever succeed. If that is what he meant he is correct. Grumbler is also correct that any employer can terminate a contract pursuant to its terms without having to allege cause. I dont think the two of you are disagreeing.
Why would you try to cast a pallor of reasonableness on the proceedings with Malthus and grumbler are obviously both enjoying themselves?
Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2014, 04:23:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 02:30:37 PM
I read Malthus' statement as meaning that if an employee in Canada was terminated for just cause for what they believed the employee would likely succeed in a case for wrongful dismissal as it is very likely such an allegation of cause would ever succeed. If that is what he meant he is correct. Grumbler is also correct that any employer can terminate a contract pursuant to its terms without having to allege cause. I dont think the two of you are disagreeing.
Why would you try to cast a pallor of reasonableness on the proceedings with Malthus and grumbler are obviously both enjoying themselves?
I apologize :Embarrass:
Why would you cast such a pussy spell?
pallor of reasonableness? pfft.
I cast FIREBALL
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 25, 2014, 05:26:00 PM
Why would you cast such a pussy spell?
pallor of reasonableness? pfft.
I cast FIREBALL
Both Malthus and grumbles are flame resistant.
Noob.
Holy Water? :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 05:50:13 PM
Holy Water? :hmm:
I'm not sure that's going to protect the rest of us from the prismatic spray.
Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2014, 05:46:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 25, 2014, 05:26:00 PM
Why would you cast such a pussy spell?
pallor of reasonableness? pfft.
I cast FIREBALL
Both Malthus and grumbles are flame resistant.
Noob.
I cheat. Llama.
Quote from: mongers on April 25, 2014, 05:52:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2014, 05:50:13 PM
Holy Water? :hmm:
I'm not sure that's going to protect the rest of us from the prismatic spray.
They are way too high a level to be turned.
Charm spells are definitely out.
I think we have to burn a wish spell.
I'd wish that Tim never existed.
NOMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAR.........
If Tim didn't exist, Languish would have to invent him.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 25, 2014, 06:27:27 PM
If Tim didn't exist, Languish would have to invent him.
:D
Well done