Let me make it perfectly clear: the reason why the views of the "left" or "progressives" or "communists" or "snowflakes" or whatever you want to call it predominate is because THEY ARE THE REASONABLE VIEWS. And they have been the reasonable views since the Enlightenment, if not going all the way back to the dawn of democracy. However imp…
Let me make it perfectly clear: the reason why the views of the "left" or "progressives" or "communists" or "snowflakes" or whatever you want to call it predominate is because THEY ARE THE REASONABLE VIEWS. And they have been the reasonable views since the Enlightenment, if not going all the way back to the dawn of democracy. However imperfect, they are a baseline of moral and ethical politics that the vast majority of decent, humane, patriotic Americans share. What the Right shouts about every day on Fox isn't an "alternative view." It's a bullshit view pushed by bullies, plutocrats, and mobsters. It deserves no respect as a view in and of itself; in fact, it's the opposite of a "view" - it's mere propaganda, and more often than not in these post-Trump days, it's just straight up lies.
Who says they predominate? Maybe in colleges, among the college-educated, but in large swathes of the population they don’t. The main problem is that progressives don’t communicate outside their bubble and are unwilling to acknowledge that a lot of working class people don’t automatically see them as reasonable. The danger is that the actual “fascists” end up looking reasonable, not just to “WWC” but to working class people of all races. This is the danger inherent in indulging these students--the stakes of losing this argument now aren’t “better luck next time” as it might have been in the 1980s. When you’re facing actual authoritarians, the danger is real, and excuses like “they meant well” don’t cut it.
The problem is that there are two sets of views being expressed by the protesters. (And by you.)
The first is “ gay, and trans people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity under the law.”
The second is “people who disagree with me on the first quote (and in your case, people who disagree with you on any major point of the left’s social and economic agenda) are ‘bullies, plutocrats, and mobsters,’ and don’t deserve the right to free speech.”
The first is a core Enlightenment value. The second is decidedly not. The Enlightenment shook off the dogmatic certainty of the Catholic Church and replaced it with freedom of speech and free enquirer precisely because it’s adherents recognized that we are never so certain of being correct that we may safely silence dissent.
“I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
There is no exception for homophobes or loudmouth Federal Judges.
"the reason why the views of the 'left' or 'progressives' or 'communists' or 'snowflakes' or whatever you want to call it predominate is because THEY ARE THE REASONABLE VIEWS. And they have been the reasonable views since the Enlightenment"
Except, of course, that a growing fraction of that group is expressly anti-Enlightenment . . . . (See, e.g., Jamelle Bouie on the subject.)
I don't see anything wrong with confronting racism, even if it means scrutinizing the history of liberal politics. I'm not sure that makes Boule anti-Enlightement, but even if he was the point still stands: the so-called "liberal bias" in media, if it truly even exists, is simply the bias towards reason, compassion, and democracy. Contrast that with the Fox/Trump/GOP world which is pure poison, and only maintains power by duping rubes.
Let me make it perfectly clear: the reason why the views of the "left" or "progressives" or "communists" or "snowflakes" or whatever you want to call it predominate is because THEY ARE THE REASONABLE VIEWS. And they have been the reasonable views since the Enlightenment, if not going all the way back to the dawn of democracy. However imperfect, they are a baseline of moral and ethical politics that the vast majority of decent, humane, patriotic Americans share. What the Right shouts about every day on Fox isn't an "alternative view." It's a bullshit view pushed by bullies, plutocrats, and mobsters. It deserves no respect as a view in and of itself; in fact, it's the opposite of a "view" - it's mere propaganda, and more often than not in these post-Trump days, it's just straight up lies.
Who says they predominate? Maybe in colleges, among the college-educated, but in large swathes of the population they don’t. The main problem is that progressives don’t communicate outside their bubble and are unwilling to acknowledge that a lot of working class people don’t automatically see them as reasonable. The danger is that the actual “fascists” end up looking reasonable, not just to “WWC” but to working class people of all races. This is the danger inherent in indulging these students--the stakes of losing this argument now aren’t “better luck next time” as it might have been in the 1980s. When you’re facing actual authoritarians, the danger is real, and excuses like “they meant well” don’t cut it.
The problem is that there are two sets of views being expressed by the protesters. (And by you.)
The first is “ gay, and trans people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity under the law.”
The second is “people who disagree with me on the first quote (and in your case, people who disagree with you on any major point of the left’s social and economic agenda) are ‘bullies, plutocrats, and mobsters,’ and don’t deserve the right to free speech.”
The first is a core Enlightenment value. The second is decidedly not. The Enlightenment shook off the dogmatic certainty of the Catholic Church and replaced it with freedom of speech and free enquirer precisely because it’s adherents recognized that we are never so certain of being correct that we may safely silence dissent.
“I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
There is no exception for homophobes or loudmouth Federal Judges.
"the reason why the views of the 'left' or 'progressives' or 'communists' or 'snowflakes' or whatever you want to call it predominate is because THEY ARE THE REASONABLE VIEWS. And they have been the reasonable views since the Enlightenment"
Except, of course, that a growing fraction of that group is expressly anti-Enlightenment . . . . (See, e.g., Jamelle Bouie on the subject.)
I don't see anything wrong with confronting racism, even if it means scrutinizing the history of liberal politics. I'm not sure that makes Boule anti-Enlightement, but even if he was the point still stands: the so-called "liberal bias" in media, if it truly even exists, is simply the bias towards reason, compassion, and democracy. Contrast that with the Fox/Trump/GOP world which is pure poison, and only maintains power by duping rubes.
Bouie is not merely "scrutinizing" it. This is part of a larger attempt at discrediting the Enlightenment through a left identitarian frame, as made clear by Liam Kofi Bright: https://sootyempiric.blogspot.com/2022/04/why-i-am-not-liberal.html