President Trump doubled down on his claim that very fine people were in Charlottesville to show support for the statue of Robert E. Lee. When asked about that comment, he said he answered that question “perfectly.” Then he discussed his view of why some of the people were there. Watch:
A review of Trump’s comments from the Charlottesville news conference shows that he condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists in one breath but in other comments he suggests that there was some other group of Lee statue supporting people who gathered with the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. In this theory, these “very fine people” were there only to support the statue which isn’t a bad thing in his mind. I maintain it is entirely right and proper to question the wisdom and character of anyone showing up to a rally convened by neo-Nazis and and white supremacists. If neo-Nazis show up in my town and rally against drunk driving, I am not going to carry a sign in that march even though I oppose drunk driving.
In my view, it is not noble to support the myth of Lee as a great statesman and General. However, I do know that some people do think that and do so sincerely. Their desire to uphold the Lost Cause blinds them to a complete picture of Lee. What makes me think Lee worship is a smokescreen is that the activities of the weekend were not about Lee. When the tiki torch marchers gathered around Lee’s statue, they didn’t sing tributes to Lee or chant “General Lee is my favorite General.” They chanted, “You will not replace us.” Watch:
The “us” in this chant referred to white people not members of the “Lee is my favorite General” club.
Those people weren’t there because of their love of military history. If they were there for Lee at all, it was because he represents white supremacy. What is very fine about that?
Giving cover to Trump’s distraction, people like Dinesh D’Souza and Matt Walsh want to make Charlottesville about Robert E. Lee as a General. It wasn’t.
Image: By Cville dog – Own work, Public Domain
Knights of the White Camellia strike again. Not American, not Christian . What reverent Christian would allow anyone around them- for whatever reason- to burn a cross. The same folks get outrageously upset when an American flag is set afire. Which should be more worthy of respect and veneration- the cross, or cloth that represents four country?
Robert E. Lee killed more Americans than any general in our nation’s history- in any war. He was a traitor – and a slave holder who abused his slaves. Not a hero.
So, if Robert E. Lee would not be abusing his slaves but actually allowed them to work only 8 hours a week and off on Sunday, then would you be fine with honoring him as a hero?
Your comment is absurd to the point of pathos.
And you have a very weak argument for not honoring Robert E. Lee because this logic follows that if those slave holders who treated their slaves without physical abuse, and many of them did so, then it makes the South justified to secede from the Union and unjustified for the federal government to prevent it. Also, Ulysses S. Grant killed no less people including civilians, yet later got elected as president and now we got monuments to him all over the country. Isn’t there a hypocrisy?
How about your largest flaw in your what-about-ism? The flaw that is evident no matter how much argumentative camouflage you spread around. The South- and RE Lee fought the Civil War against their own country to maintain the abhorrent practice of human chattel slavery in their region of that country. The practice was anathema to the ideals of the Constitution- but they attacked their own country without provocation- in a pre-emptive attack. For although the African Slave Trade was abolished in 1808, the general practice of slavery had not yet been outlawed. These Southerners turned traitor to protect an evil institution that is directly opposed to American Ideals- as darkness is to light. The South attacked Fort Sumter without provocation- in desperate fear that their easy living made off those kept in chains was about to be ended. That is what made all of them traitor to the United States- and resulted in the many killings in the war.
If you look deeper why Civil War started, you will see that slavery was just one piece of the puzzle, it was also because free northern states were for two decades imposing astronomically high tariffs on cotton imports from the South, which by the 1860s, have ruined its economy. The North was trying to put pressure on the South to abolish slavery. It makes we wonder, if it could have happened without a violent war?
The Cornerstone Speech is so called because Stephens used the word “cornerstone” to describe the “great truth” of white supremacy and black subordination upon which secession and confederation were based:
[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[2]
Using biblical imagery,[3] Stephens argued that divine laws consigned African Americans to slavery as the “substratum of our society” by saying:
Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner”—the real “corner-stone”—in our new edifice.[1]
This is the inaugural speech of the VP of the Confederate States of America.
You really don’t have your facts straight here. There were no “high tariffs on cotton imports from the south.” The US constitution forbade states from imposing tariffs on one another. In fact there were no tariffs on cotton at all which is what hurt the south, because they had to compete with foreign imports of cotton.
Actually, they were going back to 1828, where it reached a point where South Carolina was about to secede and then President Andrew Jackson sent military over there. It followed a period known as the Nullification Crisis which lasted until 1832. South Carolina was the one who declared them unconstitutional, which next year influenced the congress to create a law with new tariff rates. Still, over the next 28 years, there were several tariffs imposed that were economically hardening southern states, the last one was Morill Tariff in 1861:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff
None of the tariffs you cite were tariffs on cotton or between states in the US.
while these tariffs did hurt the south, because it had little to no manufacturing base, the predominate reason for the civil war was slavery.
Slavery and tariffs were not mutually exclusive. It looks the the federal government was trying to use tariffs as tools to eliminate slavery, but then it got things blown out of proportion. Another strong contributing factor were wars over Texas and against Mexico.
He offers such a mass of misinformation that you end up spending all your time correcting him and there is no time for real debate. I’m also not surprised at the direction his historical inaccuracies are heading – not worth the time.
Here is some helpful link:
http://civilwarcause.com/relationship.html
I admit that I made mistake when I said that the South had to pay extreme amount of tariffs to North, they had to pay that amount to foreign nations who were buying cotton from the South. Since, cotton was their main source of income and because of high tariffs, it was significantly ruining their economy. So, while I take back what I said about the South paying tariffs to the North, I still stand by my comments about the industrialized North profiting off of the South and that slavery and high tariffs were not mutually exclusive.
The causes of American Civil War are not so simplistic as there are no simplistic causes of all wars.
A side question: do you think that World War I started just because a Serbian teenager murdered an Austrian prince?
1) A little checking with a history-major blogger bud revealed that “Marse Robert” himself did NOT want statues of himself erected; that it would drive further division in a country that needed to be healed from the war. His funeral wishes were that NO uniforms be worn or Confederate flags/regalia of any kind be displayed. He considered the war over and the matter settled.
Coming from a state where Politically Correct revisionist history is as normal as under Stalin, I at first was against removal of Lee’s statues, but upon finding that “no statues or Confederate commemoratives” was the wish of the man himself, I changed my position.
And like JFK the myth bears little relationship to John Kennedy the man, so Robert E Lee the myth has long obscured Robert E Lee the man.
2) My take on Trump’s above statements is that:
2.1) Trump has always struck me as the kind of jerk boss who’s a sucker for flattery, and…
2.2) The guys with the tiki torches laid on the flattery, triggering a “They Adore ME!” response.
2.3) And that Trump is the type of guy who will NEVER admit to a mistake. That’s what flunkies are for, to fall on their swords in lieu of The Great One.
not to mention that most Civil War memorials weren’t erected immediately after the war, but in the south during the rise of the civil rights movement…which makes it painfully obvious what the true motives were
I see that all these insinuations about Trump supporting neo-Nazis as nothing but a activism trying to justify his impeachment. I hope it fails and that Trump stays our president and gets reelected, because I have been oppressed by the leftism, especially by professors in colleges who couldn’t handle my conservative positions on race and sexuality, and now for the first time in our country, we have the president who did something to protect freedom of speech by refusing to give leftist oppressive institutions federal funds and who made it his platform to fight political correctness. And if anybody might say, that I am ignoring evidence to the contrary, I’m going to be honest, all the “evidence” of how horrible Trump and other conservatives are that I have seen here, appeared to me very unconvincing.
What’s the “conservative” position on race?
There are many, but to give you and idea that there is no such thing as “white privilege,” for example. I remember how I was attacked for making logical arguments using evidence why it doesn’t exist.
Please explain to me what you believe “white privilege” means.
Like I said I don’t believe in its existence, but according to different scholars, like Peggy McIntosh it is about how whites always have easier access to opportunities and advancement socially and economically, as opposed to non-whites, especially African-Americans. It also deals with the notion that there is an institutional racism in the US from which whites are supposedly always benefit.
To me, it means that being white is rarely (if ever) an impediment in this country. It’s the default, it’s a neutral state. Simply being a different color becomes “otherness” and can be a barrier because racism still exists.
White privilege doesn’t mean that white people have more access to opportunities, it just means that their skin color doesn’t act as a limiting factor for those opportunities. It also doesn’t mean that white people don’t experience other social or economic impediments. It just means that the color of their skin isn’t one of them.
Do you not believe that racism exists? Do you ever get followed around by store employees to make sure you’re not stealing just because you’re white? Black people do.
And what’s “conservative” about not believing that black people may experience living in the US differently than white people? How does that fit into the ideology of small government Republicanism? …or are you just referring to it as “conservative” because if websites like Breitbart say it, it must be a conservative belief?
I agree, and I might add that I know any number of conservatives who understand and agree with this as well. It is not a conservative quality to ignore racial bias and its effects on our society. I think it is rather that those who do so feel at home somewhere to the right much more than to the left.
Of course, racism exists, but I don’t believe in existence of institutional racism, a system specifically designed to oppress blacks and benefit whites. The evidence shows the contrary, ie Affirmative Action. Conservative position is that today the problems of blacks are not white’s man fault, but mostly their own. In majority of American colleges, racism exists as a system where white conservative students are the victims, suffering at the hands of totalitarian leftist professors, especially the black ones. I experienced it firsthand and I am still living its scars. I am thankful that Donald Trump and Mike Pence understand what I am going through.
I don’t think that is what Michael C said, though one would have to deny historical fact to say this wasn’t the case for most of our history. Things that deeply rooted don’t turn on a dime. All the affirmative action programs put together are barely a drop in the bucket against that, a feeble attempt to undo vast collective wrongs.
That’s – just – weird. If you truly think any of that, even if it were true, is akin to the effects of racism historically expressed against African Americans in this country, you have no concept of racism.
I am beginning to understand why there are such bad reactions to your views. I’m also getting a bit creeped out by the direction this is taking.
Like I said before, I came to this conclusion after doing numerous research and hearing people’s stories similar to mine. I believe that if you have been oppressed in the past, it doesn’t justify seizing political power and becoming oppressors themselves. That’s not what America is supposed to be about. But, I was saying all this to explain why I support Trump/Pence, that’s it. I certainly did not want to start a direction. Apparently, there are many people who post here, think this is the place to bash conservative ideas (previously it was on sexuality matters but now on politics and race, as well) therefore any person coming here to defend them, is likely to get a bad reaction.
You have repeatedly, and over multiple threads, explained your “oppressive” experience with professors in college as the basis for your views on this issue. I’ve asked you twice now to simply tell me how long ago you had these experiences – context matters. You’ve built an entire narrative on this, so how long ago was it?
You mistakenly attribute your views as “conservative.” They may indeed be similar to the right wing rhetoric passing for conservative these days, but I’m old enough to know the difference.
If you go to the very top, you’ll see a post about it happening in 2012, also as a response to you, .
Yes, I see you revised it, thank you.
You have repeatedly, and over multiple threads, explained your “oppressive” experience with professors in college as the basis for your views on this issue. I’ve asked you twice now to simply tell me how long ago you had these experiences – context matters. You’ve built an entire narrative on this, so how long ago was it?
You mistakenly attribute your views as “conservative.” They may indeed be similar to the right wing rhetoric passing for conservative these days, but I’m old enough to know the difference.
I don’t think that is what Michael C said, though one would have to deny historical fact to say this wasn’t the case for most of our history. Things that deeply rooted don’t turn on a dime. All the affirmative action programs put together are barely a drop in the bucket against that, a feeble attempt to undo vast collective wrongs.
That’s – just – weird. If you truly think any of that, even if it were true, is akin to the effects of racism historically expressed against African Americans in this country, you have no concept of racism.
I am beginning to understand why there are such bad reactions to your views. I’m also getting a bit creeped out by the direction this is taking.
Institutional racism can exist even if it isn’t specifically designed by a person or system for a specific purpose. Did you just ignore your professors ‘cuz you didn’t like what they were saying?
…and our country really isn’t far removed from the type of specifically designed racist system that you choose not to believe in. There are men and women in this country who experienced a system that was specifically designed to oppress them. I’m dumbfounded as to how you could think that institutional racism simply evaporated with no lingering effects.
But thank you for answering my questions and sharing with me what you believe to be “conservative” views on race.
I have logically refuted all the professors’ positions I heard. When they couldn’t defend them, they started to personally attack me, ie demonstrated a typical behavior of leftist bozos. It created problems, and eventually I was forced to drop the class. If I really had the ‘white privilege’ I wouldn’t be in this predicament. A couple of years ago, a Jewish professor at Evergreen College publicly criticized their tradition called A Day of Absence. As a result, bunch of black and gay students started rioting demanding his firing, accusing him of being a white supremacy. He resigned due to pressure. Where was his supposedly ‘white privilege’ when he got sacked at the mercy of actions led by some black lunatics?
Now, thanks to Trump’s executive order, public colleges that allow such behaviors by stifling people’s speeches that liberals find offensive, will not receive federal aid. I would call it justice, but I’d assume that Evergreen will be forced to think again how they have treated their conservative colleagues and students in the past, now, that they will be in fear of losing money. I’d expect them to start complaining about now becoming very difficult to indoctrinate students into a leftwing ideology and calling it a ‘white supremacy system led by Trump.’
If the quality of your arguments here reflect the quality of your arguments in school they are right to disregard you and question your character.
You are basically going on about how unfair it is to not give you a pass for believing and repeatedly articulating false ideas. Essentially you are clamoring for a benefit people of color never get: The right to rewrite facts to favor your preferred worldview. You are complaining that people who are fully versed in the concept of white privilege are not granting it to you personally, then saying that their refusal to do so demonstrates it does not exist, as opposed to the more likely scenario that they understand bias fully and thus are countering it explicitly in your case.
You are basically demonstrating a case study in both white privilege itself, and how you expected it and were shocked when it was denied to you.
Great job!
You are demonstrating that anybody who claims there is a white privilege has an agenda to suppress white people’s First Amendment rights. What happened to me is nothing compared to that professor in Evergreen College and what happened to him shows that blacks can be aggressive bullies and are willing to label anybody who is appalled by their immature behavior as racists.which is not much different from several black Democrat congresspeople, who tried to have Trump let go because they didn’t like his comments about Charlottesville’s rally.
You are demonstrating that anybody who claims there is a white privilege has an agenda to suppress white people’s First Amendment rights. What happened to me is nothing compared to that professor in Evergreen College and what happened to him shows that blacks can be aggressive bullies and are willing to label anybody who is appalled by their immature behavior as racists.which is not much different from several black Democrat congresspeople, who tried to have Trump let go because they didn’t like his comments about Charlottesville’s rally.
Which government agency was suppressing your first amendment rights? Or do you not understand the constitution you profess such affection for?
Yup, totally not racist to refer to people as though they are a homogenous group rather than as individuals.
It’s almost like the person denying the concept of white privilege might be a bit racist. Er wait, its exactly like that!
I think it is college professors in vast majority of American colleges and you who want to suppress white people’s First Amendment rights. Before you insinuate that I am racist, I suggest you do a search on YouTube regarding what happened to professor Bret Weinstein in Evergreen College, and you will see what I am taking about. Unless, you think that because black people’s ancestors were slaves, white people should idly stand by and do nothing whenever some of them choose to loot, curse, and even hit others, in order to appear non-racist.
Wow, you really do have some unresolved issues in your life, don’t you. That’s undeniably racist, and I don’t actually say that often.
Here is some evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nawe3lC74jI
My unresolved issues is that radical leftwingers like you are constantly demonizing me for speaking the truth because it hurts your feelings. Trump is going to disempower such people and that’s why you hate him so much simply because you know that you and your ilk are losing.
“Radical leftwingers,” “demonizing,” “disempower,” “losing.” Listen to your language here. You are looking for nothing short of revenge for perceived slights.
After reading yours, Reflex’s, and Michael C’s posts, it makes me wonder how can you as reasonable people condone something that was shown in that video? I would find it bizarre if you make an excuse for it by merely saying: “oh, it happens because there is a white privilege and racism.” This video clearly gives us a reason why we need Trump.
Whatever the perceived problem, Trump is not a viable answer. We do not “need” Trump. We need genuine, thoughtful leadership. That can be conservative or liberal, but it looks nothing like the current administration. You seem happy with him because he is a bully willing to bully those who you feel bullied you. That is not a good basis for support.
I think most people that support Trump probably agreed with his policies and or saw him as the only one who could defeat Clinton.
Yep, that was in 2016, but the question comes what motivates people to what for Trump in 2020? There is another thread, dealing precisely with this, in case you didn’t notice.
Adam Sewer writes in The Cruelty Is the Point:
Once malice is embraced as a virtue, it is impossible to contain. The cruelty of the Trump administration’s policies, and the ritual rhetorical flaying of his targets before his supporters, are intimately connected.
Sam makes Sewer’s point.
What is Sewer’s point? That everybody who supports Trump is doing it because they hate blacks, women, Muslims, and gays? Look, I don’t believe that by publicly exposing bad behaviors of certain people, I am doing it because I hate them, but I because I want to help them by hoping that they will change.
College professors are not a government agency and as such cannot suppress your first amendment rights.
David responds to your racism below. You have serious issues.
Based on the video that I provided, it is radical leftists who are racist. If you think what they did over there was normal, then you are the one with issues.
Given that you don’t even know how the First Amendment works, I think your opinions on what is or is not racist can be dismissed, much like you claim your professors did. You went in with conclusions and no amount of evidence could dissuade you, just as you’ve done in this thread.
Professors use their position of authority to silence students who criticize leftwing ideology, like question ‘white privilege.’ That’s infringing on First Amendment rights, that’s why there have been many lawsuits. On racism, there are many whites who are racist but they cannot escape the prosecution of the law for their racist actions, hence there is no white institutional racism.
how many professors? what percentage of them “silence students”?
Can you cite any data to support such a claim? And what lawsuits (on 1st Amend grounds) against such professors are you talking about?
“they cannot escape the prosecution of the law for their racist actions,”
What law says it is illegal to be racist?
“hence there is no white institutional racism.”
What do YOU mean by “institutional racism”?
I suggest you do a google search on Liberty Counsel or Alliance Defending Freedom to learn about such lawsuits. Usually, such lawsuits range from the issues dealing being prohibited from running certain clubs or retaliations that professors impose on students. I’m not going to do your homework for you. As for laws, we have federal hate crime law as well as many others on state levels. There is always a opportunity to bring about civil lawsuit against your employer or school if you believe you were discriminated against based on your race, and also based on your religion, sex, disability, sexuality, and even your political affiliation. If there was institutional racism or ‘isms’ then, such things would not be legally allowed.
Professors don’t run student clubs. A lot of the LC or ADF lawsuits get thrown out, and they are generally against college administrations, not individual professors. And while ADF and LC may whine and complain about the 1st Amend, they don’t win because it doesn’t apply in a college classroom.
Yes, we have hate crime laws and anti-discrimination laws, but they do not make it “illegal” to be racist. They don’t stop all racist actions. They can’t even be used in all cases of racism where they do apply because it is very difficult to prove the racism.
Again, I ask you what do YOU mean by “institutional racism”?
Actually, many LC and ADF cases get won or receive settlements out of courts, which I consider a winning outcome. I heard that Trump said he wishes things like this would be never brought to courts. I guess to me, ‘institutional racism’ means when there are no laws federal or state that offer protections based on race and things that used to be before Civil Rights Acts.
You keep assigning the concept of white privilege to “left wing ideology,” when there are plenty of conservatives who fully understand and agree with the concept. The biggest difference between the camps is how it fits in with the solution. On that I will agree that extremes exist on both sides of this spectrum. But to deny the existence of white privilege is absurd. It is not something one has to apologize for on a personal basis as if one intentionally caused it, but not validating its existence and history can definitely be offensive to those on the other end of it.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/david-marcus/a-conservative-defense-of-privilege-theory
Your comments after that are absurd, and confused.
You misunderstood my earlier comments. I never denied the racist history of the United States, including slavery and laws sought to disenfranchise people of color and I do not deny its legacy that exists even today. I’m sure no educated person would ever deny that. However, I was questioning the extent of white privilege depending on which spectra of life you’re looking at. That did not go well with many of my professors and I have read about similar stories that happened with other students on campus when it dealt with race issues. Even this article suggests that we need to have a conversation about it, but on many college campuses, it’s almost impossible. By left wing ideology, I meant not only ‘white privilege’ but many other things that you could not question without the risk of being humiliated by your professor or given a lower grade. No wonder, such situations inspired Trump to sign that EO.
You are changing the goal posts and you still aren’t making any sense. I’m really beginning to see how this alleged college discussion might have gone down. We can’t really evaluate that because we weren’t there and don’t know what the facts are. Also, picking a few youtube videos is not evidence of what you are saying. Answer some of those questions that ken asked and maybe we can get somewhere. At best you sound like someone with a huge chip on their shoulder, and at worst an individual with some racial issues.
Try to remember that a classroom needs a degree of free expression, but it is not a private stage where every opinion is given equal credence. That would be counter to the mission of learning. It already sounds like you bullied one school into giving you a refund for not providing that, so it isn’t surprising that you would be pleased with Trump doing it en masse.
You are changing the goal posts and you still aren’t making any sense. I’m really beginning to see how this alleged college discussion might have gone down. We can’t really evaluate that because we weren’t there and don’t know what the facts are. Also, picking a few youtube videos is not evidence of what you are saying. Answer some of those questions that ken asked and maybe we can get somewhere. At best you sound like someone with a huge chip on their shoulder, and at worst an individual with some racial issues.
Try to remember that a classroom needs a degree of free expression, but it is not a private stage where every opinion is given equal credence. That would be counter to the mission of learning. It already sounds like you bullied one school into giving you a refund for not providing that, so it isn’t surprising that you would be pleased with Trump doing it en masse.
I answered Ken’s questions as best as I could and I don’t know what more can I say about that. At Kutztown, I expressed a disagreement in class with one openly lesbian girl on what homophobia means, and after she started personally attacking me and falsely accused me and all Evangelical Christians of hate, I quoted some biblical verses in my defense. I have been very respectful to other people’s perspectives but I was not willing to give up mine for the sake of making somebody happy. By KU’s code of conduct, I was not disruptive of learning. Still, I was asked to leave social work’s master program, even though what I did was consistent with the First Amendment and their code of ethics. Based on these facts, I was planning on suing them and simply be allowed to stay in the program, nothing more, nothing less. But it was them who voluntarily offered me a refund for the classes I have paid and some extra. After serious conversations with my family and friends, and some other issues that emerged, I willingly accepted the offer and did not bring a lawsuit. I felt it was not the right timing.
Honestly, I really don’t like how mainstream colleges address the subjects of race and sexuality. It looks like they teach students what to think not how to think.
So based on the video, that I have shown, do you believe that what happened to professor Weinstein was fair?
As for Trump, his EO might definitely intimidate professors who rebuke students for stating unpopular views on campuses, but now I’m thinking that realistically it won’t probably make much difference.
Points of view for which scripture – any scripture – must be used as a defense do not generally belong in a program about social work unless it is clearly a parochial social program. What exactly were you defending in your response to “what homophobia means?”
Again, we can’t properly evaluate what happened without an objective source, or at least reliable confirmation of the events. Your strong feelings, and history here so far, make it difficult to accept your take. That said, it seems likely that you made quite a disruptive pest of yourself, though you seem to think you were justified.
This line of discussion is droning on with a lot of drift and repetition. Again, you feel slighted and you want revenge, I get that. You feel happy because Trump is a bully, but he is your bully. I get that. I’m not sure what point that makes or why it needs to be discussed further – it is your issue and your opinion.
I feel sad that you feel the way you do. I can only hope that a future president can reverse some of the damage Trump has caused, but more so that we can get past an America that felt obliged to elect him in the first place.
To sum it up, that lesbian student brought up an issue that Evangelical Christians are homophobic because they preach that gays in relationships need to break them and repent, and if they don’t, they will go to Hell. I responded that Evangelical Christians are not homophobic but do what they believe is speaking truth in love. After that she started comparing me to the KKK and the Nazis, used curse words, and said that I should never ever say things like that. To which, I responded that she was experiencing worldly sorrows and quoted 2 Corinthians 7 to back it up. It created a ruckus, and I had discussion with program’s directors them telling me that I might reconsider being a social worker because I might hurt patients who are LGBT. I was appalled by their hypocrisy because they didn’t seem to have a problem with her being ineffective social worker due to her potential of hurting patients who are Evangelical Christians, based on the type of language that she used.
You really are a piece of work. FWIW, you would have lost the case.
This is still questionable. However, I decided to be the devil’s advocate and I would like to know on which grounds would I lose?
If it was on free speech grounds, your rights were not infringed. It seems you had your say, yet even if not there is no obligation for each student to have absolute freedom of speech in the classroom. In addition, ” telling me that I might reconsider being a social worker because I might hurt patients who are LGBT” is a responsible comment for thought, not something one can sue over.
It seems obvious that they just wanted to get rid of you because you were a troublemaker who could potentially cost them wasted time and money. If you are content with that, well it fits your profile so far. I think I would be ashamed of myself if I were in that position.
Unless you have something new to add to all this mess, I’m going to exit. You seem content to carry some pretty unhealthy baggage around and I’m not all that interested in rooting around in it with you, at least not any further.
Edited to add:
I would also interject that just because you believe something is in the Bible (or any scripture) does not give you some sort of free pass to subject others to it. Racists have used scripture to support their beliefs for centuries. You see nothing wrong with what you believe, that doesn’t make it right, or appropriate to toss around a classroom.
I would be ashamed, also. Sam? Not so much. It’s depressing.
No, I rather be ashamed of people than to be ashamed of Christ .
You’re not speaking truth to love – you’re judging people. Not your job.
I am judging various behaviors that I believe the Bible renders as sinful, but not the people. You’re correct, God is the only one who judges all of us.
Well, I decided to sue them after they tried to persuade me to admit that what I did was wrong and I refused, for which they asked me to leave.
That is a reasonable response on their end. What you did is wrong, at least as you tell it.
Is that why the leftists think it’s appropriate for practicing homosexuals to toss around a classroom their attacks on people like me by comparing us to racists and demand that we should be punished for what we believe is true in the Bible?
1. I don’t know what all “leftists” think.
2. The phrase “practicing homosexuals” is a tell here.
3. We are not talking about the other person as again, we were not there. However, had I been there, it is possible I may have disagreed with what she said as well. You are responsible for your own actions, which appear to have been pretty dreadful. I suspect you hurt her and she reacted emotionally. I don’t see how your reaction to any of that was very Christlike. I don’t see Jesus threatening to sue for his rights in that instance.
4. Concerning your justification of your actions with scripture, see my previous comment.
5. You have made racist statements here, and you also tend to speak about people by assigning actions, opinions and traits to them as a group. It is clear you have racist ideas. It may well be that you deserved the adjective in class that day, I do not know. Acting badly is acting badly, whether your excuse is scripture or not. Not everyone sees scripture as authoritative, and those who do don’t all agree on what it says.
Are we done now?
I was just asking a general question, do people who practice homosexuality and proud of it do the right thing when they verbally attack conservative Evangelical Christians in classrooms? In my case, it was the girl (she later admitted about living together with her girlfriend) who started her rant first and I responded. After all, I decided not to proceed with a legal action.
As for what happened with Weinstein, I used evidence showing how students of different races behaved childishly and how Evergreen’ s administration stood idly by. Still, the underlying concern for their behavior was the experience of African Americans in the United States and I was asking a question why would somebody condone such a childish behavior?
The fact is that you falsely accused me of acting racist, as the paragraph above proves otherwise, and the fact that your overall tone says that conservatives should not exercise their constutional rights to sue as American citizens whenever they feel discriminated against, demonstrates a typical behavior of a leftist. I am so glad that we have such a president as Trump who for the first time in history has publicly denounced it.
I was just asking a general question, do people who practice homosexuality and proud of it do the right thing when they verbally attack conservative Evangelical Christians in classrooms? In my case, it was the girl (she later admitted about living together with her girlfriend) who started her rant first and I responded. After all, I decided not to proceed with a legal action.
As for what happened with Weinstein, I used evidence showing how students of different races behaved childishly and how Evergreen’ s administration stood idly by. Still, the underlying concern for their behavior was the experience of African Americans in the United States and I was asking a question why would somebody condone such a childish behavior?
The fact is that you falsely accused me of acting racist, as the paragraph above proves otherwise, and the fact that your overall tone says that conservatives should not exercise their constutional rights to sue as American citizens whenever they feel discriminated against, demonstrates a typical behavior of a leftist. I am so glad that we have such a president as Trump who for the first time in history has publicly denounced it.
…I had discussion with program’s directors them telling me that I might reconsider being a social worker because I might hurt patients who are LGBT.
Sounds like the directors were also ‘speaking truth in love” to you and not something that should cause a winning lawsuit. How they handled the woman is entirely irrelevant.
It is relevant because we are looking at the bigger picture where this is a product of our society which helps us to understand why people are voting for Trump. Btw, we have another thread dealing specifically with that.
…you feel slighted and you want revenge,
The politics of resentment? Where white, hard working rural Americans feel disrespected by liberals and believe that everything they deserve is going to immigrants, minorities, women, LBGTQ people in the cities. Sam is experiencing what immigrants, minorities, etc have experienced throughout history and into the present, yet totally resents when it may be dished out to him, if it is dished out to him. Hard to tell with Sam as he seems to take offense at many things that ring liberal or against the Bible as he sees it. But when did revenge become Biblical?
Anything can be made to look Biblical if you are willing to think like Sam – and many others. It’s pretty disgusting really. Then again, if not for people like Sam, I might still be locked into similar thought. It’s a strange thing, but these horrid examples can actually help set others free. Not sure if that redeems the pain also caused, but there it is.
Truth.
I am a son of immigrants from former Soviet Union and my parents have experienced bigotry for not being native-English speakers, despite that they have worked hard and became middle class. For this reason, I resent the idea that if you are a part of marginalized group, you should expect to fail in America and demand that the country owes something. Additionally, I resent everything the Left stands for because it strongly resembles where my parents came from, and this is why I support Trump, because he acknowledges that the Left sucks. Justice is Biblical, so is revenge, but it has to be done by God.
Justice is Biblical, so is revenge, but it has to be done by God.
Seems like you’re trying to do God’s job then. I’ve also read that God will judge, but you’ve taken that over, as well, when you judge lefties, gays, immigrants, minorities and everyone else that doesn’t think like you.
I see the world differently: it is Trump and Pence who are trying to reverse all that damage that unAmerican extremists have done (both left and right) for the past 100 years.
“I answered Ken’s questions as best as I could”
Which unfortunately was not at all. This inability to answer only serves to highlight you are basing your opinions on a few anecdotes (and I suspect some very biased reporting) rather than any real understanding of the situation on college campuses in the US.
“do you believe that what happened to professor Weinstein was fair?”
I wouldn’t make any inferences based on that video. That said, based on what I learned about the situation I would say no it wasn’t fair what happened to Weinstein. I think the administration handled the situation poorly and let it get out of hand. All this case proves is that there are times when students can take things too far and college administrations can screw up. It does NOT prove any kind of wide-spread systematic oppression of conservative voices on college campuses.
Ken,
I want to thank you for your honest response, even though, we might disagree on whats and whys, I see that you understand where I’m coming from. I’m sorry that I couldn’t provide a better explanation to you for my views, but at least I tried. I used that video in order to show that what I say and do, is not motivated by any kind of hate or prejudice towards ANYBODY and rather try to explain WHY many people in America are likely to vote for Trump, but if I still failed at this, then I would like to apologize to everybody for eliciting this negative perception of me.
You might want to check this video about what’s going on our campuses, and why these “white privilege” and “white systemic racism” do not make any sense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diC3UrJdzBs
Are you okay? Is there someone you’d like me to call?
Yeah, I’m cool. I don’t know if I can talk to somebody, since I’m in Australia, but I remember we were discussing the subject of white privilege/institutional racism and I just got this video in my youtube feed, so I thought I’d share because I found it to be relevant. This video only reinforces me to support Trump’s EO on protecting free speech on college campuses.
I oppose ANYONE supporting, condoning or soft-pedaling Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Even if they aren’t the President.
The fact that Trump does is one of many legitimate reasons to want him out of office.
The sheer tonnage of objective character flaws and moral depravity that one has to ignore in order to want a man like Trump to be re-elected is staggering. But to want it solely because of the rhetoric he spouts is truly a disgusting thought to me. Politically, I think impeachment is problematic and dangerous. However, considering the purpose of the impeachment process, how can we not? How will we ever take that office seriously again if we don’t? If not with this president, when?
Agreed.
It is also very telling that Conservatives, particularly white Evangelicals, haven’t sought to remove him via the 25th Amendment. His cognitive impaired and emotional instability are blatant, so 25ing him would be fully justified, and at the end they end up with President Pence who would deliver the same shit [ok, less racism and more homophobia] in an ostensibly respectably package.
But it seems they actually do prefer the cruelty, the bullying, the juvenile antics, the crudity, the tastelessness, the shameless lying and ignorance of Trump. The bleating of white Evangelicals about “Morality” has lost all credibility.
Indeed. The critical mass of frothing-at-the-mouth White Evangelicals following Trump is now well-documented, thanks in part to Patheos Evangelical comment sections like Gene Veith’s Cranach blog. They are quite proud of their active denial of Jesus, and they have certainly earned their own reputations, all by themselves.
The bleating of white Evangelicals about “Morality” has lost all credibility.
Never again do I want to hear concern about the ‘moral relativism’ of liberals. We are pikers compared to the Evangelicals.
This, a thousand times, this.
And how exactly have you been oppressed? Have you been arrested and/or imprisoned for unpopular conservative opinions? Have you suffered financial damage because businesses conspired not to hire you because on your conservative views? Have your rights been violated merely because you’re a conservative?
If not, then you have have not actually been oppressed. It’s more likely that you have no idea what actual oppression is. It has been my observation that many conservatives often mistake oppression for criticism, mockery, disdain, or businesses exercising their legal rights not to serve someone they don’t want to (as long as that reason isn’t merely because they are a member of a protected class). *Those* things are part of the free market place of ideas, things conservatives claim to support and claim that the Left doesn’t But, it has been my observation, that many Conservatives are not actually for these things either. Or rather, only pretend to be for them when they themselves benefit.
*On top of that*, even if you were screwed over by this leftist professor purely for bigoted and unfair reasons, why isn’t that professor just an A-hole? How is this the fault of all the Left? If I met a racist right wing professor, I’m pretty sure you would be defending conservatism as not defined by him. How is this any different?
Now we are finally seeing some truth from you.
What I have written now, is not much different what I have in the past, and I have been very open about my dislike for PC in our society.
Perhaps you have done so in the past, but on this thread you have been playing a lot of games. It would have been much more honest to have started with this last comment.
How long ago was your experience with this professor? You seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder about it.
I said ‘professors’ so it was more than with a one person and in several colleges. I also read about and watched videos about people with similar experiences as mine.
So how long ago?
Last time, I had to deal with this was in 2012 and it was in Kutztown University. They offered me a refund for my classes after I promised to sue them for infringing on my 1st Amendment rights (it was a public university), I decided to accept the offer, considering all the circumstances. But just because I got supposedly compensated for inconvenience, it still shows that we have a problem. Look, I read numerous research and listened to other people’s stories and I came to conclusion, that there is a widespread persecution against conservatives including Evangelical Christians, especially in colleges. I am saying this to justify my support for Trump.
Supporting a guy who demonizes anyone who disagrees with him, who attacks the free press and threatens his enemies seems like a counterproductive response to having the same thing done to you. Doing to others what was done to you violates the Golden Rule, doesn’t it?
I must admit that I don’t really like Donald as a person, and he definitely needs to work on his manners, but it still doesn’t change my view that he is a good president, imho he is doing a better job than Obama did not only at home but in foreign policies. Trump and Pence are not supposed to be everybody’s friends let alone expected to be liked, they are supposed to be a president and a vice president of a nation. Speaking of Pence, since he is automatically being reelected too, this guy is an Evangelical who is engrossingly civil, and if Trump resigns, he would step in and become our president. You never know.
I am not even talking about him as a person. I am talking about what he has and is doing as president. Demonizing his political enemies, threatening them, attacking the press, attacking our allies, cozying up to dictators, supporting an evil war in Yemen, obstructing justice in a legitimate investigation of Russian interference all add up to a president who under any other historical circumstance would be facing impeachment. I cannot understand why evangelicals are attracted to Trump when Pence would be the alternative. One cannot now say Trump or Hillary; it is and has been Trump or Pence and the evangelicals have consistently chosen Trump.
Supporting a guy who demonizes anyone who disagrees with him, who attacks the free press and threatens his enemies seems like a counterproductive response to having the same thing done to you. Doing to others what was done to you violates the Golden Rule, doesn’t it?
And how exactly have you been oppressed? Have you been arrested and/or imprisoned for unpopular conservative opinions? Have you suffered financial damage because businesses conspired not to hire you because on your conservative views? Have your rights been violated merely because you’re a conservative?
If not, then you have have not actually been oppressed. It’s more likely that you have no idea what actual oppression is. It has been my observation that many conservatives often mistake oppression for criticism, mockery, disdain, or businesses exercising their legal rights not to serve someone they don’t want to (as long as that reason isn’t merely because they are a member of a protected class). *Those* things are part of the free market place of ideas, things conservatives claim to support and claim that the Left doesn’t But, it has been my observation, that many Conservatives are not actually for these things either. Or rather, only pretend to be for them when they themselves benefit.
*On top of that*, even if you were screwed over by this leftist professor purely for bigoted and unfair reasons, why isn’t that professor just an A-hole? How is this the fault of all the Left? If I met a racist right wing professor, I’m pretty sure you would be defending conservatism as not defined by him. How is this any different?
I was asked several times to leave counseling and social work masters programs because I expressed my views on race and sexuality issues, and it made people feel uncomfortable. Yet, leftist students and professors have been making insulting comments about white men and evangelical Christians, and no program directors said they would be unfit to be counselors and social workers. And it’s not all about me, it’s about other people, like the plaintiff in Masterpiece cakeshop v. Colorado Commission. This shows that conservatives are being persecuted and Trump and Pence are saying: this is not acceptable in the US where everybody is protected by the First Amendment. I am questioning whether for the Radical Left the mere existence of the First Amendment is a product of a ‘white man’s oppression?’
I’m trying to find my violin here but it’s so tiny I must have misplaced it…
White male Christians own the overwhelming majority of the wealth, the overwhelming majority of elected positions and overwhelming majority of corporate positions in this country. Your issue is not with ‘liberals’, its that not all white men, who control virtually everything in this nation, agree with you anymore and as a result things are starting to change. You confuse a loss of special privilege with an attack.
White men are no longer the nearly unified front they once were against ethnic and sexual minorities, women, foreigners and non-Christians, and this has begun to crack the dam that was holding back equality for everyone else.
Many of us can now see that those things are bad not only for those being oppressed, but for white male Christians as well. We are rejecting toxic masculinity, institutional racism and acceptable bigotry and are increasingly willing to cede our position at the table to someone from a lesser represented group.
This is the reality, you can embrace it or you can reject it, the choice is yours. For people like me, I found embracing it despite my conservative and christian background was incredibly rewarding.
I can see why you would be seen as unfit to be a counselor and social worker. Your worldview is so skewed and backward that an objective truth couldn’t possibly find its way into your brain.
That you can find caging children, demonizing enemies and the press, loving murderous dictators, etc to be evangelically conservative and something a great president would do is mind-blowing.
It is your skewed leftist view that is being indoctrinated to students in many of our colleges’ counseling and social work programs and students who question them are being accused of insensitivity and told to leave, unless they convert. Now, such schools that are public will lose federal money due to Trump’s executive order, unless they repent.
Also, under Trump’s watch, the number of our troops killed in combat has been ten times smaller than under his predecessors, Obama and Bush. He also pulled almost all of our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and he negotiates with two other superpowers how to reduce geopolitical influence for the sake of world’s peace. Jesus said: “blessed are the peacemakers” Trump, despite his own hurdles, is doing the best he can to address it. So, there.
Now, such schools that are public will lose federal money due to Trump’s executive order, unless they repent.
Have you read the actual Executive Order? It says no such thing, although your comment says a lot about Trump’s followers. You people will buy anything he’s selling, without checking to see if you’re buying nothing more than thin air.
All the EO says is that universities and colleges should follow the requirements already in place. It offers no enforcement of the requirements or penalties if an institution should stray. It’s a big nothing burger.
So, there.
Thanks for the laugh.
The regulations regarding free speech have been in place but they were not enforced all the times, so this EO is a reminder of it. Its Section 2 deals with free speech and Section 3 deals with government sponsored grants to schools, and it says that Section 3 must comply with Section 2. Realistically, it can put pressure on colleges, but will they react is uncertain. We’ll wait and see.
So, in other words, the truth is that nothing changed and universities won’t lose federal funding because of the EO. You saw the EO as a great Trumpist victory two posts up, but now you’re uncertain.
“I see,” said the blindman.
It would be up to the Department of Education’s discretion to decide, which funding to provide, but this EO is a binding legal document giving the federal government an authority. If they observe its violation, they can take action.
The Federal Government already had full authority. The EO only seeks to ‘promote’ and ‘encourage’ free and open debate. It authorizes the government to take steps to insure universities are following federal law, something it was already authorized to do.
Neither the laws or enforcement of same have changed.
Like all EOs, it can be removed at any time. I find it extremely hypocritical that Obama, who issued EOs at half the rate of Trump, was pummeled for it and called all sorts of names, including dictator. For Trump, these same people seem to have no issue at all with it. Clearly, it was not “governing by EO” that bothered them, but what the Executive ordered. If it’s something you like, it’s fine.
Exactly. Obama wore a tan suit and the GOP went into full cardiac arrest, the same reaction it had to his EOs. Now they can barely be bothered.
Yes, it was the same shade as the one Reagan wore on occasion. These are our leaders.
Yes, I like Trump’s EOs. I never had problems with Obama’s EOs though, I mean, they were irrelevant to me, nor do I think he was a dictator, but rather a poor president, but for other issues.
Whatever the rally was “about” – and looking to what D’Souza and Walsh have to say about it is an interesting view into their thinking but utterly unconnected to the remarks of President himself – the fact remains that not everyone was there to demonstrate as a racist. I have linked to CNN articles which demonstrate that rallies are sometimes attended by parties who were not invited by those who organize and promote an event that takes place in public. I have linked to video of people who were there for purposes of championing free speech in previous comments on this blog (a group which included black and gay individuals), and there is another video on YouTube of a guy who was just visiting a comic book store in the town on that same day because he was traveling for work and actually saw the driver of the vehicle who killed someone. Some of these people were physically attacked by Antifa-types, and whether you like it or not, the President of the United States is not even at liberty to downplay violence against people, especially those who are not even doing anything wrong. Your opinion of the wisdom of their being there is flatly irrelevant. Protest is constitutionally protected. Assault is a crime.
You have continually insisted that the President called neo-nazis and white supremecists “very fine people”, despite that fact that in the very same press conference Trump said, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally.” There is absolutely nothing unclear about that statement. You seem to have backed off of that claim a bit, but you still can’t recognize the simple facts.
You are not the arbiter of what people may or may not say and do as long as they do not break the law. When they do break the law, you may not excuse them because you don’t like one side or another. I find your attitude on this matter to be irrational and unfair. I have stated before, and will repeat it now: I lived in Kent, Ohio. While rioters engaged the National Guard on May 4, 1970, some innocent kids were crossing a parking lot in the background and were shot dead/paralyzed by bullets. Thinking people viewed this as a tragedy, however sad it was that these kids either did not hear or did not heed the call to stay in their dorms and away from the riots. I heard more than once that the kids who were shot “deserved it”, because they were on campus with arsonists and rioters. Guilty by association! That’s what you sound like, Warren, when you are so blinded by your abhorrence at Trump that you can’t simply say that people don’t deserve to get clubbed for being in a public space or vilified by their own President for being in a public space with their own priorities, even if you don’t like their opinions.
Thank God you aren’t the President with an attitude like that. The President we have can be faulted on a thousand fronts. Why fabricate and promote baloney? We don’t need more phony Steele dossiers to tip the scales. Even those who want Confederate monuments to remain sometimes do so because they fear that erasing history will cause us to repeat it, not because they admire the figures. I personally thinking it’s kinda Taliban-like to purge the country of offensive works, and that we have to guard against going overboard even as I fully believe black citizens should not have to tolerate these monuments in their towns and communities.
“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally.”
Trump certainly wasn’t praising Antifa or other protestors. He also wasn’t referring to the comic book guy. It’s ridiculous and naive to think anyone so concerned with free speech would think it a good idea to join white nationalists and neo-nazis to make their point. And really, how many bad statue lovers would show up and stay when they saw swastikas abounding?
Other than maybe a stray person or two, there was no other group to call “fine people”.
What about people who heard about a rally called “Unite the Right” and thought it was for conservatives, not realizing it was staged by neo-nazis? There were some, and they’ve talked about it.
If 10,000 total racist jerks are gathered in a field, and one innocent person is there and is attacked by anyone for any reason, I care about that. They are not just collateral damage that I write off so I can keep ranting about my self-righteous outrage without having to think too much.
And if I were to attend a rally thinking it was about supporting free speech, but then saw it was being run by neo-nazis, I would leave.
That’s your choice. Unless the cops are ordering people to leave, those who remain do not deserved to get assaulted by anyone.
Has anyone said anybody deserved to be assaulted? Where did that idea come in?
Apparently the President is not allowed to:
– Condemn violence no matter who it is committed by.
– Acknowledge that not everyone at the rally was a neo-nazi or Antifa-type.
– Characterize people who do not want Confederate memorials altered/removed as “fine people”.
Because all of these are racist equivocations or accrue to the benefit of neo-nazis somehow.
I have repeatedly pointed out and provided evidence that people who were both diverse and not neo-nazis were at the rally, some accidentally, and some deliberately. Some of those same people were physically attacked by Antifa-types.
The response from Warren has been a repeated, “Fine people would not have been there.” Not, “Wow, that is unfortunate.” Or, “Wow, how regrettable that someone was physically assaulted.”
I have stated that this reminds of me those I have personally heard say that the KSU students deserved to get shot by the National Guard in 1970 because they were dumb enough to remain on campus with a bunch of rioters and arsonists. “If they didn’t want to get shot, they shouldn’t have been there.”
The pres is allowed to do any of the things you list. Who is stopping him from doing it?
However, when he does those things to minimize racist actions, people are quite justified in calling him out on it.
I’m still not seeing where anyone said anybody deserved to be assaulted. I think you need to clarify that or get rid of it.
I’m sorry, but if I say a woman was raped, and the only response is, “Well, she’s the one who decided to leave her house in a short skirt,” then I consider that as equal to “She deserved it” even if no one literally says, “She deserved it.”
Again, apples and oranges. The discussion was about Trump’s remarks. There is a big difference between “not very fine people” and “deserve to be assaulted.”
To be honest, I’m fine with punching Nazis and cheered the assault on Richard Spencer. That said, he’s a rare case. Mind you I’m not egging anyone on to do it, but the violin I feel when I saw that was so small as to require an electron microscope to locate.
At least you are honest.
Literally tens of millions of humans were exterminated by Nazis and fascists in the past century. Including my own family fleeing Sicily due to Mussolini. I have zero compunction treating fascists and Nazis terribly.
You don’t get to just re-introduce the same failed, deadly ideology over and over and expect to be given a fair shake as though you have done something new and groundbreaking and we all should just forget the past. These people are literally defending the inhuman extermination of millions and promoting such again.
And I would oppose them to their faces. I believe that’s the better way to do it as an individual. I don’t feel at liberty to physically attack someone except in self-defense, and that’s probably what they want. It’s validating. I don’t believe that the pedigree of neo-nazis operating in America is the same as those of Nazi Germany. I think they are terribly misinformed and indoctrinated, and that their ignorance can’t withstand a good debate. They should be laughed at, which is their worst nightmare.
Then you need to read history. People seem to understand the Nazis and other fascists through the lens of Hollywood and World War 2 fiction, where they are brutish thugs taking over via intimidation. In reality while that certainly was one aspect of their rule, they also had an intelligentsia, pushing pseudo-scientific theories about race, class, gender and social hierarchy. They were often well dressed, well spoken, charming and disarming.
It is the latter approach that Spencer evokes, and it is by far the most dangerous as it normalizes utter horror. You won’t talk these people out of it. You won’t expose their intent via clever words. You won’t make them realize the error of their ways via convincing argument. By even engaging them you are validating them as a part of the public discourse and lending credibility to their ideas.
This is why Ben Shapiro demands people ‘debate’ him, as though that proves anything. He isn’t trying to win debates, he is trying to validate his views by the quality of the people willing to discuss them publicly with him. The same goes for most of the intellectual alt-right.
I agree that they should not be debated, and that superior ideas are not going to make a difference with them (or those inclined to agree with them). It only elevates their stature. To think otherwise, at least in this instance, is rather Capraesque in it’s naivete. I’m not, however, inclined to punch them. However, if my own family had been the victims of Nazi atrocities, I might be forgiven the indulgence.
I think they are terribly misinformed and indoctrinated, and that their ignorance can’t withstand a good debate. They should be laughed at, which is their worst nightmare.
Said the Jews in circa 1938 Germany
Some of those same people were physically attacked by Antifa-types.
If you read the Neo-Nazis chat logs, they deliberately went to fight and arrived armed and wanting to start the fight, so they could hot wire a race war. Your patriots may have thought something about that was worth defending and took a hit from Antifa, but Heather Heyer took more than a hit from the Nazis. And Heyer wasn’t part of Antifa, so it’s hard to see where your gripe comes from.
I never said anything about “deserving to be assaulted.” The issue was whether they would constitute “very fine people” if they stayed at a racist rally. As Warren has said, if they stay they fail the ‘very fine people” test.
For the last time, I am not talking about some naive person who wandered in by accident and neither is Trump. He said there were those who were there to protest the statue’s removal. They didn’t wander in, they came to do something. When they got there and saw swastikas and the like, that is when their status as very fine people was tested. You stay, you fail.
Like seriously, if you show up thinking its some honest conservative event and there are swastikas and Aryan Nations skinheads anywhere, you are no longer some innocent conservative, you are participating in a racist rally. At that point you are one of them.
Okay, Warren. That’s your take. There is nothing clearly correct or unassailable about it, such that it is grounds to characterize Trump’s statements as somehow fundamentally disordered or immoral. You just have a strong opinion that when one sees racists, one should immediately leave the area. You apparently feel this so strongly that you do not even care who gets attacked or hurt in such situations, because in your view no one is innocent if they remain. Additionally, they are objectively bad people.
I have to say, part of why this bothers me is that there was to be a neo-nazi march in my town (Knoxville). I planned to be there with a sign that said, “Knox does not agree with you… get out of our city.” I had every right to be there to express my beliefs rather than sitting at home doing nothing so that I don’t breathe the same air as racists. And I would not deserve to be attacked or hurt for it, even though it would be a risk. I could not just let a display like that pass without confronting it. Other people have different aspects they are passionate about. They don’t deserve to be lumped in with racists just because they are in the same place and it tinkers with your ideological narrative.
Congratulations, you have an opinion. I’m not forfeiting my own freedoms for it, and apparently neither are a lot of other people. The President (who, I must always remind people, I think is a big fat dummy) gets it, and you don’t.
I have to ask. Even if everything you said before this last sentence were true, and knowing what you do about how blithely this president spouts so much crap without a thought (evidenced by how much of it is nonsensical, contradictory, or just emotionally unhinged), do you really think he had deep convictions behind these words in that we could say “he gets it?”
The only thing I think the man truly gets is that he thinks he is God.
I planned to be there with a sign that said, “Knox does not agree with you… get out of our city.”
I don’t get it. The sign clearly marks you as a counter-protestor, not as a racist. Trump said, “There were some fine people on both sides,” meaning the racists and the not racists. (Both meaning 2 sides.) I thought you were talking about some 3rd group, like the comic book guy or people who came for free speech. If the comic book guy and free speech-ers stayed just to shop or something, but did not join either of the groups, Trump wasn’t talking about them, either.
I’m sorry, but you have been duped by fake news. You believe a hoax about what Trump said and what he meant, because you have been lied to by the press and by certain political interests.
Trump very clearly said, in the very same press conference, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
He could not have been more clear. And, as can be demonstrated, he was factually correct about the composition of the crowd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McKfSoya2zM
Now, I understand that these are precisely the kind of people who make effete leftists’ (and Bill Kristol’s) skin crawl. But that doesn’t matter. They have rights and and deserve certain protections, the same as anyone else.
Interpreting the Constitution is much like interpreting the Bible. It can say anything, apparently.
This “fine” group writes this on their About section: Music, History , Politics and anything anti Islamic. Not very Constitutionalist on their part.
The Patriot group got the same protections everyone got that day. None
If all leftists (and Bill K) are ‘effete’, I’m sure you won’t mind if I lump this right-wing Patriot group in with the white nationalists and racists.
If someone states that they are anti Christian, or anti Scientology, or anti NAMBLA, does that mean they are not Constitutionalist? The Constitution is about how we find common cause in Liberty even though we disagree and have the freedom to say so. It’s not about approving of everything.
You are right… they all received none, and that’s why the President was correct in condemning violence from all sides.
Do you link to and promote videos by people who are avowed anti-Christians who spread hate and lies about them?
Like Christopher Hitches? Yes, I adored Christopher Hitchens. Joe Rogan is pretty tough on Catholics. In short, yes, I absolutely love many commentators, speakers and authors who I believe are grossly wrong about my faith.
As someone else who liked and read Christopher Hitchens, you are going to have to point me to where he spread lies and hate about Christians. He disagreed with faith and was an atheist, he was not anti-Christian nor did he slander or advocate hatred towards them.
The people in the video you linked are no Christopher Hitchens.
“The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.”
Yes, very diplomatic, never mind that he is mistaken about the entire narrative of the Bible.
I’m sorry, what? I’ve actually read the Bible back to back multiple times, he is not wrong on these points, nor is he wrong to point out that these sections of the Bible have been and are currently used to justify many terrible things. It is no different than Islam in that regard, and whether we want to admit it or not we are being selective in how we follow our faith since we disregard these sections typically in modern Christianity in the west.
His critiques are completely valid, and indeed similar critiques are valid of Islam, Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism and Judaism. It is not slander to point out what our holy books say or how some of our adherents interpret the word.
Lying, spreading hate and bashing on a faith are not the same thing as having an honest discussion about the tenets and writings of that faith.
Again, you are diminishing Hitchens by placing him with admitted Islamaphobes.
Do you believe the Bible gives you warrant for human trafficking, ethnic cleansing or slavery? I don’t. I don’t personally know any Christians or Jews who do. Not a single one. I know a lot of people who believe that we do not live in an ancient Jewish theocracy, or who believe that not everything described in the Bible is prescribed, or who believe that Jesus was the perfect image of the Father, not Moses. While I am not a Catholic, I’m pretty sure there are some priests who have not man-plowed any children.
I think maybe you’re a little off, as was Hitchens. And here’s how I know that, as much as I admired him, he was just a simple bombastic showman: because he always reserved his sharpest, most hostile barbs for those not in the room. The fictional, fanged, barbaric person of his imagining… or that horrible Mother Theresa… they were torn to shreds. But he never had anything so vicious to say to the very people he shared the stage with, and that’s because his cartoonish and absurd polemics could not even survive the presence of a perfectly friendly and reasonable person standing behind the other podium.
Literally hundreds of millions of Christians historically and even today absolutely believe it did and does. The Bible is used to justify, even today, practices around the world ranging from slavery to conquest to polygamy. It is completely fair to point this out, it is not slander and in fact I am fine with people pointing this out about Islam and other faiths. You aren’t lying or slandering something by pointing out what the holy book says and what practices its believers have and do follow.
I understand the urge to utilize the No True Scotsman fallacy to disown such interpretations, but it does not change the fact that in this nation the Bible has in the past hundred and fifty years routinely been used to justify slavery, polygamy, women as property, laws against miscegenation and horrific treatment of LGBTQ people.
If you do not believe those things that’s great, neither do I. But I am not going to pretend there aren’t many Christians even right here who do believe their faith justifies those things, and in some cases they even act on them or attempt to enforce them via law.
But again, you are attempting to pretend someone like Hitchens is equivalent to a Muslim hate organization. Which is ludicrous.
Here’s the thing with blaming the Bible for these human failures rather than, even if the book is total baloney, viewing it as a reflection of those realities: every single human experience that carries persuasive or any other power/influence over people is abused. People are abused, subjugated, lied to, made to think they are crazy, deprived, enslaved, killed, tortured, etc. Love, loyalty, trust, sex, vulnerability… ALL of these things are dragged into service in the never ending assertion of power between human beings. It is no indictment of love, loyalty, trust, sex/intimacy, or vulnerability.
You are not addressing my point. You are equating a reasonable and well known writer who was widely discussed with and debated by Christian academics and respected in that community for his thoughtful and informed critiques….with a group of guys who invite and celebrate hatred of Muslims.
You can dance around that point all you want. You can pretend there is an equivalence if you like. You can throw so many words into the ether. But its a false equivalence to justify linking to an anti-Muslim hate group and pretending its a legitimate source on anything. By bringing them into a presumably intellectual debate and discussion you are normalizing their presence in civilized discussion.
I reject that, just as I reject Richard Spencer’s place in any civilized discussion.
Edit: Just want to add that while I hate doing a ‘both sides’ equivalence when at the moment the right wing is far worse and in much greater numbers than the far left, to put this into a context that maybe you can comprehend and agree with I would also reject basically anything coming from the Nation of Islam or Louis Farrakhan for the same reasons. He is a virulent anti-Semite with a un-nuanced and deceptive view of history and a score to settle that is only partially justified. I don’t link to him even when he seems to prove my point on a given subject or is in agreement with me because in no way would I ever do anything to validate his thought process or presence in the public discourse.
We could argue all day long about equivalences, who is better, who is worse, and why. We will never agree.
The bottom line I am taking away from this exchange is that you (and I guess others here) believe the answer to toxic speech/beliefs/ideas is sometimes vigilante violence. Good luck with that.
I believe the answer is public confrontation, with superior ideas. Violence is reserved for physical self defense, except in the case of proper law enforcement dealing with persons breaking the law. Until someone breaks the law, they 100% deserve protection from violence, no matter who is attacking or who is being attacked.
Replace anti-Islamic with anti-Semitic. Still think they have ‘valid points’ worth discussing? Still see them as on par with Christopher Hitchens?
Going to repeat since you apparently did not read what I wrote: I do not encourage violence. I still felt a thrill when Spencer was punched on video. Why? Because Spencer is a literal Nazi. I would not feel a thrill if someone punched, say, Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan, despite how toxic they are. They are not literal Nazis. Nazis are horrible excuses for human beings who are responsible for the death of millions of my fellow humans around the world, including many of my countrymen during WW2.
Similarly, I felt a thrill over the killing of Osama bin Laden. I don’t generally feel a thrill when someone is punched or killed. I don’t even watch boxing of MMA as I don’t enjoy physical violence. But Nazis can die in a fire.
I have no problem with the police arresting the man who punched Spencer. It was a crime. My guess is that he also will not have a problem with his arrest. I would bet he made that mental calculation and decided it was worth it. After all, Spencer is a literal Nazi. And Nazis are horrible piece of crap human beings who justify the slaughter of their fellow humans.
Joe Rogan is toxic?! I promise not to argue because I have to know: Why do you believe he is toxic?
Joe Rogan’s main purpose is to serve as a gateway to the Alt-Right, he has a long history dating back to the mid-90’s as a conspiracy theorist and promoter of the outer fringes like Alex Jones, and his current approach is to bring far right individuals to people who may only be slightly to the right of mainstream conservatism. His schtick, along with other fringe figures like Jordan Peterson, is to appear reasonable and get just enough mainstream guests to claim to be ‘balanced’ while in reality moving the Overton window to the crazy side of right wing politics and culture.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/joe-rogans-podcast-is-an-essential-platform-for-freethinkers-who-hate-the-left.html
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59ade5/inside-youtubes-alt-media-ecosystem
As I said, I don’t put him in the same bucket as Richard Spencer, but he knowingly serves as a conduit in that direction.
Interesting. I will definitely read those articles. Thank you!
“Religious exhortation and telling people, telling children, that if they don’t do the right thing, they’ll go to terrifying punishments or unbelievable rewards, that’s making a living out of lying to children. That’s what the priesthood do. And if all they did was lie to the children, it would be bad enough. But they rape them and torture them and then hope we’ll call it ‘abuse’.”
Totally fair!
I’m reminded of the terrified, crying kids exiting a showing of “A Thief in the Night” at church, and all those priests (and pastors) that have sexually assaulted children and adults by telling them it was a requirement for being closer to God or somehow part of their duties to the faith. Much of what is taught in our churches and sunday schools is no more than psychological abuse, and it is absolutely “justified” by rather vague doctrine almost universally supported.
I’m reminded of the terrified, crying kids exiting a showing of “A Thief in the Night” at church, and all those priests (and pastors) that have sexually assaulted children and adults by telling them it was a requirement for being closer to God or somehow part of their duties to the faith. Much of what is taught in our churches and sunday schools is no more than psychological abuse, and it is absolutely “justified” by rather vague doctrine almost universally supported.
This is pretty weak. The existence of Gettysburg National Cemetery is an example of a powerful symbol which cries for us to not repeat an awful history. A statue honoring Robert E Lee, in the middle of a city, is not. Moving it to a museum or cemetary does not “erase history.”
Which is it? And who is purging anything? The only cases I’ve heard of (including in my own town) were of moving them to places where you would expect to see such relics of history, and away from places of honor. No one is planting dynamite.
As I’ve said on a couple of other occasions when you took similar issue with Warren’s comments on this, I disagree with your view. Arguments of this sort are part of the problem with defending such a position. You are certainly as welcome to your view as any of us, but you haven’t done a particularly good job of arguing for it in this case. I usually find more points of agreement with your comments.
To purge or not to purge, that is the question.
You can’t have it both ways. The monuments were put in place to celebrate the Lost Cause. They need to come down and be placed in a museum. Some aren’t particularly good art or of notable figures and could be destroyed. But even if none of them are destroyed they shouldn’t be honored.
Russia cries fascism when Poland tears down Lenin monuments.
That’s because ruling Polish political party, Law and Justice, is populist centre-right and wants to create as much as distance as possible within Poland-Russia relations.
Also, Lenin was a terrible dictator who along with Stalin was responsible for the murder of a large number of Poles…
And yet many college professors glorify the Bolshevik Revolution that Lenin started, how ironic.
And yet many college professors glorify the Bolshevik Revolution that Lenin started, how ironic.
Do you have a citation for that? I’ve never heard anyone glorify the B Revolution in any of my classes.
You mean, you never heard in your classes, how horrible conditions for workers (which I’m not denying) and peasants were under capitalism, colonialism, that it inspired for Karl Marx to write Communist Manifesto and the Capital, which later influenced Lenin to make revolution in 1917? That’s what I heard in several of my history and political science classes. I recommend you read a book by David Horowitz “101 most dangerous professors.”
Conditions were horrible, particularly in that time period. It was only after the early 20th century that even the US started regulating work conditions and minimum ages of workers, safety, etc. The extremely brief recitation of history you have provided doesn’t glorify anything, it simply states objective historical fact.
David Horowitz uses significant amounts of ink to defend Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Army–McCarthy hearings. It is no wonder, I suppose, since he is doing a version of the same thing.
I agree with you but it makes me wonder why this has become an issue only in recent years? Surely, since the time these monuments were erected, even past the Civil Rights Acts passing, there were concerns and racial incidents but they all stood there proudly, nonetheless. So, why only now?
Why did we only eliminate slavery in 1863? Why did we only make Jim Crow illegal in the mid 1960s? Society is a living thing, it evolves and changes, and thankfully, as the man said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” The one thing it is not is stagnant.
And that’s what bugs me: after making Jim Crow illegal in the mid 1960s, I’d expect them to be removed then but the monuments still stood for another 50 years.
Why would they necessarily coincide when so many other aspects of this issue have not? Those were just the highlights I offered, there have been many more incremental steps along the way. Ensuring that an African American can get served at a counter or can vote without interference does not automatically mean that a majority will suddenly decide they are fed up with monuments like these in places of honor.
Just because you weren’t aware of it does not mean it wasn’t an issue before ‘recent years’. In fact it was always an issue, these statues were erected specifically to intimidate minority populations and were controversial when erected, and throughout their existence. Your lack of knowledge about that controversy speaks to your awareness more than anything else.
You can’t have it both ways? Nonsense. Moving the work is not always possible. You can put educational materials at the site that frame the history, etc. You are just a binary thinker on this front, one who also apparently thinks he knows what is good and bad (or sufficiently significant) art.
I think we have to be careful about censorship, and about purging anything from the past that does not fit contemporary values. I don’t want ideologues walking through museums with box cutters and spray paint deciding what paintings deserve to exist.
Warren isn’t talking about “purging” anything. He was very clear he was talking about removing “from places of honor” monuments that celebrate racist ideologies.
Regarding The Lost Cause mythology:
Much like General Washington (another Virginian) defusing a possible military coup after the Continental Congress screwed the army over after Yorktown, after Appomattox General Lee had to forbid some of his subordinates from “taking to the hills” and going guerilla for revenge; what some historians have called “the Vietnamization of the war”. Can you imagine what that would have done, stoking the resentment to the point of Yugoslavia and/or Rwanda?
None of the alternatives for the defeated Confederacy were good, especially after the death of Lincoln; The Lost Cause may have been the least bad of a set of bad alternatives.
My above-mentioned blogger contact also said that the peak of Confederate Monument erection in the south was actually around the 1920s, the same peak period as the Second Klan. Both were probably a surge in the Dark Side of Southern identity. Possibly linked to a “Stick it to the North!” reaction analogous to a lot of 2016 Trump followers “Stick It to ‘Em!” attitude.
I am not talking about people who might have accidentally strayed into the rioting. I also don’t believe Trump was talking about those accidentals either.
I assumed, as I assume Trump also assumed, that there actually were regular old rednecks in the crowd who voted for him, as well as really racist type people. I didn’t see them as essentially the same group at the time. But since then I’ve had experience showing me how much bigotry loves to hide behind excuses and I guess I’ve just had enough.
If the birds flock together, I’m going to presume they’re of the same feather. It’s a heuristic that holds true for all kinds of character flaws.
Again, thankfully legal protections don’t rest on your biases and opinions.
Do you believe that people deserved to be acted upon with illegal violence if they weren’t there accidentally, or that the President should not have condemned such violence against anyone who was deliberately in that space for any reason? What the heck is the difference?
What you don’t appear to grasp is that when people are physically attacked for engaging in a Constitutionally protected activity (whether it is going to a protest for their own reasons or trying to buy a gallon of milk at a store), your opinion is not the prevailing issue.
As far as I understand, the protest was about keeping the statue of Lee as part of history, regardless whether he was good or bad as person or a general, but what I don’t understand is who these people in the video were afraid they were going to be replaced by?
Your understanding is incorrect, and now follows your usual back-bending exercise to uncover every single benefit of the doubt you can dig up from…. somewhere…
And what makes you think that your immense disgust for anything conservative, is always the correct one?
I’m not sure you want to assign to the conservative point of view what you appear to be. Also, I don’t see where the “disgust” was evidenced here. Tacitus simply called you on something you tend to do which doesn’t really help the debate.
Tacitus decided to bring up something from my “usual” so I decided to bring up his “usual”, which is his strong dislike for Trump and D’Souza that I’ve seen in other posts. You know, I admit, it’s really irrelevant, so perhaps, somebody can, please, answer my original question.
If this bit is what you mean by your original question, the idea that you don’t already know the answer strains credulity. Why would you feign naivete on that?
Regarding the first part of your comment, let’s hope and pray that Trump and D’Souza are not accepted as representative of conservative thought. There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons one could be disgusted with both that have nothing to do with ideology.
I truly don’t remember the full context, it was like 2 years ago. Was there an attempt to replace Lee with some other monument? Or did those white folks really believe that African American Charlottesvillians would drive them out of town?
The plan was to have the statue moved to private property and change the name of the park.
white supremacists
When white nationalists chant “you will not replace us,” they are referring to the “muddying” of the white race with other races and Jews. They believe the white race is under attack from other races and Jews.
Do you really not know these very basic things?
I see. I don’t, since I am not a white nationalist or supremacist and have never met such.
I’m not a nazi and I’ve never met Hitler, but I have a pretty good idea of what his views/policies were.
I meant the phrase “you will not replace us.” I have never heard it before and never knew what it implied until now.
Since you don’t follow even the most basic news it seems, we can safely assume you know nothing at all about current topics being discussed on this site. Come back when you’ve bothered to actually do a little reading so that you can contribute positively, nobody here owes you an education.
JAQing off, as always, sam80. You aren’t fooling anyone.
It usually is.
It certainly is in this case.
Your understanding is incorrect, and now follows your usual back-bending exercise to uncover every single benefit of the doubt you can dig up from…. somewhere…
Really? Have you just not been paying attention?
This question has already been answered. Thank you.
If you aren’t paying attention (and aren’t just JAQing off, which seems more likely) then please spare us your clueless dipshit routine and read the frickin’ article. The topic is addressed directly.
If you pay attention to this thread, 3 people have addressed this issue. Let’s move on.
Is there some blog imposed limit on how many people can respond to a comment?
Nope.
I didn’t realize there was actually a term for that, lol. Damn irritating practice.
Non Nazis.