The Left has always been in favor of free speech when they're talking about dissident leftists.But not when they gain the whip hand.
Just look at what happened to John Derbyshire, Pat Buchanan, and Larry Summers when they questioned egalitarian orthodoxy.
Old Rebel, you mean when they promoted racism?
KyCobb,Summers cited research that indicated men and women are naturally different in the way they think, and that it was expected women would tend not be drawn to careers in math and science.You're good at sniffing out "racism" everywhere you look - but how do you get "racism" out of Summer's statement?And you seem to be implying that those three gentlemen deserved to be canned for crimethink, thus proving Martin's point.
Old Rebel,You are confused, because governments convict people of crimes, and Derbyshire and Buchanan, to my knowledge, haven't been convicted of anything. The private organizations don't want to be associated with their racism, which is their right. It sounds rather socialist of you to argue that private companies should not have the right to fire employees. And why are you trying to violate the free speech rights of people to criticize their comments?
KyCobb,The point here is "liberal intolerance." Demanding that people be fired for expressing views you don't like is cowardly. If you disagree with someone, debate them.Lyskenoism is ruining this country.
Old Rebel,John Derbyshire was fired by the National Review, a conservative magazine. If it was merely liberals wanting him fired, that would have served as a badge of honor for him there. There is a difference between conservative and racist, and the National Review didn't want to be tainted by the stench of his racism. This is what the conservative editor of National Review said: "[Derbyshire's] latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible," National Review Editor Rich Lowry wrote in a statement posted late Saturday night. "We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways."
Old Rebel,Racism is beyond the pale. To debate racists is to give their odious ideas a veneer of respectability which they have no right to claim. Noone has any obligation to provide a platform to racists from which they can spew their venom.
KyCobb,Problem is, any dissent from the official orthodoxy is branded as "racist," supposedly making it illegitimate.National Review is just another Neocon outlet, meaning it's pro-big-government and for open borders - hardly conservative.Look at Buchanan. Is it legitimate to debate DC's failure to enforce immigration laws? What are the consequences of Whites becoming a minority in their own country?But the powers that be said we cannot even discuss those issues.
Old Rebel,"What are the consequences of Whites becoming a minority in their own country?"That is exactly the kind of despicable racist venom that is beyond the pale of human decency. Its your country, huh? So african-americans are what, just guests you barely tolerate? Native Americans were here millenia before whites, but its not their country? My children I adopted as infants from China aren't Americans because their skin isn't pale enough to suit you? Racism has been the single worst problem America has had to deal with throughout its history, and its time to bury that ignorance and hatred in the past where it belongs.
KyCobb,My, but it's easy to jerk your chain.Look, it's a radical proposition to deliberately initiate demographic revolution. Don't we get a say? The history of such changes in world history are not encouraging. To label a position as "racist" and proclaim it is therefore illegitimate is NOT how a republic settles policy questions.
Old Rebel,I get kind of riled up when haters target my children as not real Americans.This is the same old nativist BS we've been hearing for centuries. Supposedly, this country was going to be destroyed by the Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Slavs, the Jews, the Japanese and now the Hispanics and the Muslims, and of course African-Americans have always been the targets of hate and fear campaigns. Its always been nothing but hatred and prejudice.Your position appears to be that you want this to remain a majority white nation. That is racism, pure and simple, and I don't know how you can pretend its not. Its also a moot point, unless you want to propose ethnic cleansing or genocide. Even if we turned this nation into a walled fortress, nonhispanic white couples are now having fewer babies than multiracial, hispanic and nonwhite couples, so sooner or later, this nation will no longer be majority white. Then maybe we can all just be Americans, instead of the targets of hatred.
KyCobb,See, this is exactly Martin's point. Anyone who argues with a liberal is motivated purely by "hate" and "racism." Love of one's own people is patriotism, not hate. It's a natural human feeling. That's why all countries have immigration laws.Sadly, big business wants more cheap, exploitable labor, and leftists want more votes. Therefore, DC refuses to enforce existing immigration law.
Old Rebel,"Love of one's own people is patriotism, not hate."My people are Americans. Apparently, your people are only whites. That's not patriotism, that's racism.
Love of one's own people is patriotism, not hate.Maybe we can agree on some things.I vote that we herd all them Dookies out onto the Outer Banks, wall them off from the sensible folk, and let them watch that horrid UPS commercial 'til their eyes fall out.
I attended HS in a notoriously liberal Boston suburb. I always valued tolerance and the free exchange of ideas and it was there that I learned that in practice, liberals were the least tolerant people to be found. File that under "Why I Am a Conservative."
Not to change the subject, but I feel that if gays are serious about the marriage thing, and not just pursuing this as a poke in the eye to people whose moral beliefs they disapprove of, they would first want to join the movement to reform marriage and divorce law. I've seen a lot of ugly divorces, from friends' parents back in the 70's-80's when we first followed liberal advice to treat marriage as recreation/hobby rather than a career, to the hideous "no-fault" present with its unpunished phony abuse allegations and all. Here is my wish-list:1.No kid should have to commute between parents. They can settle on one home for the kids and move back and forth themselves.2.No kid should have to spend 1 minute making nice to Dad's mistress/Mom's boy-toy, much less living with the home-wrecker.3. Whoever files without grounds, loses.4. False abuse allegations should be rewarded with jail time and loss of custody.5. No marriage license without pre-marital counseling, STDtesting and waiting period. And in this new era of sperm banks and in vitro, screening for accidental incest.6.Existence of pre-nup is automatic grounds for divorce.7.Grounds for marriage nullification: abuse; adultery; desertion; cruelty; fraud; theft; pre-nup; shotgun-wedding.8. No "no-fault".Any other ideas?
Post a Comment