What Liberals Think America Is Doing Right

Toleration is beneficial inasmuch as it bolsters our ability to live freely and righteously.  It is not a value by itself – it is bound by shared ethical standards.

To understand the bounds of tolerance, ask yourself the following questions.  Would it be OK to legalize pedophilia?  Should incest be allowed?  What about bestiality?

The most intolerant people are those preaching tolerance. Discrimination is a right.

Read the whole thing

Advertisements

Don’t listen to the liberals – Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows

In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go.

The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being ‘true’ to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others.

Source: Daily Mail

Identity Politics Works Until You Run Out of Other People

The choke point is when the small minority expands to include you. And then it’s no longer a few billionaires. It’s the upper middle class. And then it’s the entire middle class. It’s all white people. It’s all men. And then it’s everyone. The minority turns out to be the majority. And that’s the scam.

Identity politics is approaching its own choke point. It’s running out of other people.

Source: Sultan Knish

How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies

Example: “hate speech is excluded from protection. dont [sic] just say you love the constitution . . . read it.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo, on Twitter, February 6, 2015.
Example: “I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would.” Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR, February 6, 2015.

In the United States, “hate speech” is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.

“Hate speech” means many things to many Americans. There’s no widely accepted legal definition in American law. More importantly, as Professor Eugene Volokh explains conclusively, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Americans are free to impose social consequences on ugly speech, but the government is not free to impose official sanctions upon it. In other words, even if the phrase “hate speech” had a recognized legal definition, it would still not carry legal consequences.

This is not a close or ambiguous question of law.

When the media frames a free speech story as an inquiry into whether something is “hate speech,” it’s asking a question of morals or taste poorly disguised as a question of law. It’s the equivalent of asking “is this speech rude?”

source: Popehat

 

Profs propose using classrooms to counter Trump rhetoric

“These students and their allies look to us for support and assurances,” they write. “The academy can, and should, help our students…contest increased social inequality and exclusionary discourse toward immigrants that is now being amplified by the Trump Administration.”

Translation: We are not engaging in any education anymore. Straight political indoctrination is the order of the day.

Source: Campus Reform