(HOTAIR) “….’Liberals think they are tolerant but often they aren’t,’ Zakaria said. He then cited a 2016 PEW survey which found 70% of Democrats said Republicans were close-minded as compared to 52% of Republicans who said the same of Democrats. ‘But each side scores about the same in terms of close-mindedness and hostility to hearing contrarian views,’ Zakaria said….” (More at NEWSBUSTERS)
One of the few times I agree with him. But as HOTAIR notes, he bungles his commencement speech a bit.
(H-T: DatNoFact) This survey has only been up on the OXFORD TIMES site for a few hours so far, but you can see most people are sane (remember, about 7% believe Elvis is still alive):
The DAILY MAIL notes the transition from “he” or “she” to “ze”
Oxford University is encouraging students to use the gender-neutral pronoun ‘ze’ instead of ‘she and ‘he’.
The students’ union wrote in a leaflet that the move was intended to reduce the risk of transgender students being offended.
Students hope that the use of ‘ze’ will continue into university lectures and seminars, reported The Sunday Times.
According to Oxford University’s behaviour code, using the wrong pronoun to define a transgender person is an offence.
[….]
Cambridge University made the indication that they also wanted to move in a similar direction….
The DAILY CALLER continues…
In a pamphlet from the students’ union, students are encouraged to used “ze” instead of “she” and “he,” reports The Huffington Post UK. Some students want seminars and classes to begin using the gender neutral pronoun “ze.”
Oxford University’s code of conduct warns against repeatedly using the wrong pronouns to address a transgender person.
A gay activist praised the suggestion, calling it a “thoughtful, considerate move.”
Yeh… so thoughtful to institute speech codes and thought codes… CONTINUING…
A guidebook, sent to various schools, warned teachers, school administrators, parents and students, against language that implies that only two genders exist. The terms “ladies” and “gents” were also criticized.
The book suggested various ways to describe gender and sexuality. Children who identify with the gender they were born as should be called “cisgender,” the book declared. The guidebook introduced terms such as “panromantic,” “intersex”and “genderqueer.”
“I think it is damaging to children to introduce uncertainty into their minds,” one critic said.
More on this via THE OREGONIAN:
Higher education in the United States has been roiled in recent years by “microaggressions,” leading to demands for “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces.”
The issue went viral last fall when a Yale University student concerned about offensive Halloween costumes confronted a school administrator. “These freshmen come here and they think this is what Yale is!” the outraged student yelled.
[….]
The resulting national debate revealed that many comedians now avoid college campuses because of the political atmosphere. “I don’t play colleges,” Jerry Seinfeld said, “but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.’ I’ll give you an example: My daughter’s 14. My wife says to her, ‘Well, you know, in the next couple years, I think maybe you’re going to want to be hanging around the city more on the weekends, so you can see boys.’ You know what my daughter says? She says, ‘That’s sexist.’ They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist.’ ‘That’s sexist.’ ‘That’s prejudice.’ They don’t know what the f–k they’re talking about.”
The campaign against offensive speech on campus is the result of good intentions gone bad: the effort by universities in the 1980s and ’90s to be inclusive led to the radicalization of hurt feelings.
But the University of Chicago, one of the country’s premier schools, has had enough of it. The online journal Inside Higher Ed reports that John (Jay) Ellison, the dean of students, sent out a letter to all incoming freshmen that tells them that during their time at the U of C they can expect to be exposed to ideas that make them uncomfortable and that challenge some of their most preciously held views. The letter pointed out that the university expects civility and respect to rule the day. It then added:
“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”
Some great articles on this can be found here:
★ F.I.R.E. – U. Chicago’s ‘Academic Freedom’ Letter a Win for Campus Speech
★ The Washington Times – University of Chicago to freshmen: We do not support ‘trigger warnings,’ ‘safe spaces’
★ Chicago Tribune – Editorial: Defending free speech on college campuses
★ Red State – University Of Chicago To New Students: Screw Your “Safe Space”
★ PJ Media – University of Chicago Defends Free Speech Against ‘Safe Spaces’
★ Zero Hedge – University of Chicago Tells Millennials to Suck It Up, “We Do Not Condone ‘Safe Spaces'”
★ Reason.org – Finally: University of Chicago Warns Freshmen Not to Expect Safe Spaces, Trigger Warnings
Above Video Description:
Dan Bongino explains with two examples (this being the first) about how Democrats ignore Federal Law when it suits their purposes, but then they demand that Republicans follow Federal Laws, such as Obamacare.
This is a great example because it shows a double-standard in a tyrannical way about laws passed (right or wrong) and how the left views freedom and government — which is merely to suit their “power” goals.
Above Video Description:
Dan Bongino explains with two examples (this being the second) about how Democrats impose restrictions on free speech when it suits their needs… often times with violence. This is a historical trend that in the past has led to heinous crimes against humanity.
The example shown in the audio is video of a Black Lives Matter woman using force and threat of violence to get her way against Milo Yiannopoulos and others. In leftist-Democrat-fairyland, this is acceptable… but sitting politely on stage and fielding dissenting questions is not.
The other issue Dan brings up is of the Westboro Baptists… apparently he is not aware that Fred Phelps and his wife were life-long Democrats. Fred Phelps even ran for office 5-times, each time as a Democrat.
For more of Dan Bongino’s stuff, see here:
✦ Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/authors/dan-bongino
✦ His blog is here: http://blog.bongino.com/
✦ Make sure to follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/dbongino
This comes via the Harvard Crimson… which will surely be shut down do to it violating the feelings of a minority of students (h/t to Twitchy & Truth Revolt):
I used to believe that open discourse was a value all Americans hold dear. I presumed that when asked about what makes America so unique, many Americans would respond that our pluralistic society is the foundation of so much of our success. That it was understood that without a marketplace of ideas, our society simply could not flourish.
But then I started college.
Since the beginning of my freshman year, I have come to believe that a more fitting way to describe the current culture on college campuses is a culture defined not by open expression—but by sensitivity. This undue focus on feelings has caused the college campus to often feel like a place where one has to monitor every syllable that is uttered to ensure that it could not under any circumstance offend anyone to the slightest degree. It sometimes feels as though pluralism has become an antiquated concept. Facts and history have been discarded, and instead feelings have been deemed to be the criteria that determine whether words and actions are acceptable.
It is important to have organizations and movements on college campuses that work toward protecting individuals’ identities. The past few decades have witnessed an explosion of new identities, and students should become aware of and respect the plethora of new identities that have recently emerged. But many of these movements have gone too far.
Take the University of New Hampshire’s “Bias-Free Language Guide.” The list was compiled to inform students of words that are considered offensive in conversation. According to the guide, which was removed from the school’s website a few months ago after it incited controversy, the word “American” is unacceptable, for it fails to recognize people of South American origin. “American,” it argues, should be replaced with “resident of the U.S.” The words “senior citizens,” “older people,” and “elders” should also be eliminated, and instead replaced with “people of advanced age” and “old people.” If we’re at a point where it is offensive to say that your 90-year-old grandparent is a senior citizen, it seems that pretty soon, there may not be any neutral words left.
[….]
In a class I attended earlier this semester, a large portion of the first meeting was devoted to compiling a list of rules for class discussion. A student contended that as a woman, she would be unable to sit across from a student who declared that he was strongly against abortion, and the other students in the seminar vigorously defended this declaration. The professor remained silent. In a recent conversation with peers, I posed a question about a verse from the Bible. A Harvard employee in the room immediately interjected, informing me that we were in a safe space and I was thus not permitted to discuss the controversial biblical passage. And these are just stories from the past three months.
The assaults on free expression have dire consequences. The rise of the microagression movement has been reported to be detrimental to mental health on campus. Students’ emotional distress is increasing as educators presume that fragile undergraduates need to be protected from any form of dissent. Administrators must recognize that the current restrictions are incompatible with the very premise and goal of an education.
It is time to stop focusing on feelings as the criteria for speech and actions on the college campus.
(More by Rachel E. Huebner)
While we are on the topic of censorship… Dennis Prager gives us an update to Marquette University’s Censorship of Professor John McAdams and other students:
This next video brings a damning aspect to university campuses in that it speaks to the worst countries for freedom of speech:
Dennis Prager sheds some thinking and light on the recent issue of the fascist left shutting down free speech. While I may parse a little of his position – for instance Cruz should have come out and have been clear on the main issue that this is a tactic of the left, to shut down freedom of speech while at the same time noting just how un-presidential Trump has been – Dennis Prager is still correct in his overall premise.
AND REPUBLICAN missed an opportunity to separate what conservatism “is” – the protection of all sides being heard; versus only one side using brown shirt type tactics:
✦ Groups of National Socialists invaded meetings of the society, interrupted the speaker, attempted to attack him, and endeavored to make sufficient disturbance so that the meetings would have to be cancelled.
✦ In Berlin, under the leadership of Goebbels, so-called Roll kommandos were organized for the purpose of disrupting political meetings of all non-Nazi groups. These Roll kommandos were charged with interrupting, making noise, and unnerving the speaker.
You can see a recent upload in this regards here.
For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/ ~ see also: http://www.prageruniversity.com/
GAY PATRIOT posts this idea that Socialism and Authoritarianism Are Joined at the Hip:
In the Netherlands (a progressive democratic-socialist Eurotopian country in the Bernie Sanders model), the police are paying house calls to intimidate people who express the wrong ideas in social media.
Throughout the Netherlands, the police visits are part of campaign led by local authorities to address concerns related to social media at the communal level. A spokesperson from the municipality of Loon op Zand, which governs Kaatsheuvel, told DW that police in her municipality only rarely pay personal visits to social media users. If they do, she says, the goal is to clarify that user’s intentions and plans for real-world protests. A police spokesperson from the Oost-Nederland region added that similar programs in his region are intended to be proactive rather than reactive: Local authorities let social media users know in advance that they’re walking a fine line, and they also inform those users that they could face incitement charges if their calls for protests ultimately result in violence.
All Socialist countries will incline toward authoritarianism; this is because all Socialists are authoritarians in their bones….
Here is more about the type of “Tweets” that make the police come-a-callin:
In rare instances, Dutch police are knocking on social media users’ doors and asking them to be careful writing posts about refugees that could lead to real-life violence and, ultimately, to charges of online incitement.
One example is Mark Jongeneel, a small business owner in the small city of Sliedrecht who tweeted his reaction to asylum plans in his city:
Translation: “The college of Sliedrecht has a proposal to receive 250 refugees in the coming 2 years. What a bad plan! #letusresist”
Hours later, his mother (with whom he lives) contacted him to say local police had visited her house and were now on their way to his office.
“I asked them what the problem was. And they said, ‘Your tweets,'” Jongeneel told DW. “And they asked me to be careful about my Twitter behavior, because if there are riots, then I’m responsible.”….
Later, FRONTPAGE MAG notes that Mark Jongeneel said:
I hope they’ve got some Stasi advisers to help them do it.
Here is an interesting story of censorship on Amazon via Breitbart:
Bowing to left-wing pressure, U.S. online retailer Amazon.com has taken down “wartime refugee” costumes for children on its Italian and German sites dw.com reports.
To British and American readers the move would seem to come at an odd time, but for Germans and Italians the upcoming season of Carnival is their chance to dress up.
The most interesting thing about the costumes in question are that they are obviously not meant to represent the continent’s current migrants, but Amazon has still removed them for fear of causing offence.
The boys’ costume consists of brown trousers, a white shirt, grey sleeveless jumper and a flat cap. It is something more reminiscent of wartime comedy Dad’s Army than the ongoing war in Syria. The girls costume is equally innocuous, being a long dress infinitely less flashy than anything worn by young girls today.
The costumes look old because they are based off of children from the first and second world war when both mothers and their children were often evacuated from cities targeted for bombing raids, and ended up in places less likely to be bombed like Wales or small rural towns….
Video Description:
Should offensive speech be banned? Where should we, as a society, draw the line where permitted speech is on one side, and forbidden speech is on the other? Should we even have that line? And should free speech be limited by things like trigger warnings and punishments for microaggressions? Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, answers these questions and more.
Censorship is the new norm, and this is with thanks to the left. See for instance Jerry Seinfeld talking about censorship in comedy.
To even write that Bruce Jenner is a man and not a woman is hate speech.
Pittsburgh ‘News’ Room, Lobbyists Demand Columnist Firing for ‘Jenner Still a Mister’ Piece
Stating an anti-transgender opinion is close to forbidden in today’s “news” pages and “news” rooms, especially after the Bruce Jenner fawning frenzy. Exhibit A? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist and associate editor Jennifer Graham (no relation to me) wrote a column truthfully titled “Caitlyn Jenner is still a mister.”
JimRomenesko.com notes Jay Brown of the so-called Human Rights Campaign demanded in a letter that she be fired for “hate speech, plain and simple”:
I am writing to you regarding a despicably offensive and inaccurate column by your employee, Jennifer Graham. Simply put, after submitting a piece so utterly lacking truth or decency, she should be relieved of her role as a columnist….
There is still time to make this right, but the solution involves taking action now. Ms. Graham has no business serving as a columnist at a publication with a reputation as sterling like yours. Instead, lift up a Pittsburgh voice that has something meaningful to say on the issues of the day.”
I posted the above on my FaceBook and got the following response from a gal I adore… but who is just mimicking pop-culture:
How is it anyone’s business other than Caitlin Jenner’s to decide what/who to be called?
Here is my response to the above… and it is in the hopes to create sound thinking/reflection on how she, we, encapsulate thoughts… and thus meaning. (I AM HERE including slightly more information than in the original response):
You are making my point. So let’s change this around: “How is it anyone’s business other than ‘the Pittsburgh columnist to comment on Jenner’.”
You see, when a baker decides to not make a cake for a specific event, the power of the state gets involved. Likewise, we will soon see the state get involved in issues like these… like pastors being fined and even threatened with jail for preaching from Romans.
Also, there is a growing movement of people who had operations to become a woman speaking out against fellow “prospective” transgenders from getting the operation and deluding oneself into thinking they are the opposite sex (See my “Transgender Page” for some examples)
Again, using your premise said another way:
Self Refuting (Alvin Plantinga’s “Tar Baby”)
Again, relativism claims that all so-called truth is relative, that there really is no absolute truth, but that different things (whatever they may be) may be true for me but not for you. This is at times called perspectivalism.
Is this philosophy of relativism making the statement that this is the ultimate, absolute truth about truth? In that case, it actually asserts what it denies, and so is self-deleting, simply logically incoherent as a philosophical position[1] and in violation of the Law of non-contradiction (LNC), one of the most important laws of logical thought.[2] I will show some common – everyday – rebukes that show how people contradict themselves, thus undermining what in fact they are trying to assert.
Some Examples ~ You Shouldn’t Force Your Morality On Me![3]
Self-Defeating
So lets unpack this phrase and see how it is self-refuting, or as Tom Morris[4] put it, self-deleting. When someone says, “Who are you to say?” answer with, “Who are you to say ‘Who are you to say’?”[5]
This person is challenging your right to correct another, yet she is correcting you. Your response to her amounts to “Who are you to correct my correction, if correcting in itself is wrong?” or “If I don’t have the right to challenge your view, then why do you have the right to challenge mine?” Her objection is self-refuting; you’re just pointing it out.
The “Who are you to say?” challenge fails on another account. Taken at face value, the question challenges one’s authority to judge another’s conduct. It says, in effect, “What authorizes you to make a rule for others? Are you in charge?” This challenge miscasts my position. I don’t expect others to obey me simply because I say so. I’m appealing to reason, not asserting my authority. It’s one thing to force beliefs; it’s quite another to state those beliefs and make an appeal for them.
The “Who are you to say?” complaint is a cheap shot. At best it’s self-defeating. It’s an attempt to challenge the legitimacy of your moral judgments, but the statement itself implies a moral judgment. At worst, it legitimizes anarchy!
[1] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46
[2] “…is considered the foundation of logical reasoning,” Manuel Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Readings (Wadsworth; 2001), p. 51. “A theory in which this law fails…is an inconsistent theory”, edited by Ted Honderich, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (Oxford Univ; 1995), p. 625.
[3] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.
[4] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46
[5] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.
(See more at my SCRIBD)
I then mentioned that the first part of this “two-part import” from my old blog to my new one may fit the applications as well:
Agree or Not?
This is a combination of two posts, the first was a question I posed to someone in a forum. Below you see what that question was and where I led that person. The second is a bit of political science. Both repeat some of the same idea, but both are different.
So let’s highlight the first question by a court case that has, well, institutionalized the “post-modern” society. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996), the 9th District Appeals Court wrote:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
In other words, whatever you believe is your origin, and thus your designating meaning on both your life and body is your business, no one else’s. If you believe that the child growing in you – no matter at what stage (Doe v. Bolton) – isn’t a child unless you designate it so. You alone can choose to or not choose to designate life to that “fetus”. It isn’t a “potential person” until you say it is first a person. Understand? That being clarified, do you agree with this general statement:
“If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own reality…”
Sounds really close to the 9th Courts majority view doesn’t it. The above is basically saying that your opinion is just as valid as another persons opinion because both are your’s and the other persons perspective on something is formed from influences from your culture and experiences. So someone from New Guiney may have a differing view or opinion on eating dogs than an American.
Let’s compare a portion from both statements:
Whether you’re an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Muslim, it doesn’t matter. Your reality is just that… your reality, or opinion, or personal dogma. I want to now complete one of the quotes that I left somewhat edited, not only that, but I want to ask you if you still agree with it after you find out who wrote it.
Ready?
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
One commentator on my LiveLeak said:
Another said:
On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin interviews Caroline Crocker, who shares about her experience during the filming of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” and how she first became interested in the debate over origins. What was it like for Dr. Crocker when she was expelled for questioning Darwinian evolution (and having Ben Stein write the Foreword for her new book, Free to Think)? Listen in and find out. Buy her book: Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters
The Real Story of How Caroline Crocker Was Expelled from George Mason University. Are scientists free to think and follow the evidence wherever it leads? On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews Caroline Crocker, president of the American Institute for Technology and Science Education and author of Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters. Dr. Crocker was famously expelled from her job at George Mason University. Listen in as she shares stories about her inspiring student and reveals details in her case for the first time.
On this episode of ID the Future, Caroline Crocker is interviewed by Casey Luskin about the principles of academic freedom in education. Listen in as Dr. Crocker shares from her experience in the classroom at George Mason University and how all the problems she navigated there had a common thread: the lack of integrity in science.