Liberalism -- the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

There are many cases where the presumption of innocence is not respected ... and various other elements of the Rule of Law.

and yes ... I worry about such things.

 

No, hate speech is NEVER "well thought out".

And, YES students don't need to have their acceptance of our pluralistic society challenged by a call to hate.

As I pointed out, our educational institutions make decisions on what is "well thought out" as a fact of their very profession. And again, students have a right to a position on this as well, as they have skin in the game when they dedicate their educational years to a specific institution and pay their tuition.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

As per wiki, that captures it reasonably concisely for a post:
"Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets."

Those are still bedrock progressive issues as exemplified in civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

 

"Many cases"???

I find that difficult, as so few cases ever reach the courts where such a presumption could possibly come to bear.

Remember, you are worried whether the 6 who were found guilty are actually guilty when there are 994 who ARE guilty and rarely ever even have to stand trial.

Are you "worried" AT ALL about those 994 women whose were sexually assaulted and which cases resulted in NOTHING?

I don't understand how one could POSSIBLY be so one sided as that without actually hating women.

 

Why shouldn't acceptance of a pluralistic society be challenged? Pluralistic societies have many defects. Are you afraid of discussing these defects or of having students made aware of them?

Why are you so afraid to give alternative views a hearing? Is your position so weak that it cannot withstand even token disagreement?

 

Total craziness, 2018 is worse than Stalin's totalitarian terror.

 

I am not sure what you are not sure of ? Most if not of the above are principles of Republicanism.

 

I'm not afraid of alternative views. My point is that there is limited time and space at educational institutions (which I think was the target of previous comments), and that such institutions have to make selections. In so doing, they have a responsibility related to education - both as stated by the institution itself and from the students who dedicate their time and tuitions to the institution.

I agree that studying this idea of a pluralistic society is an important topic. But, that doesn't mean that our educational institutions have to accept hate speech.

 

I should have stated that I meant not just "cases" as in legal cases. I am talking about some of the cases like in Universities.

I am do not understand why you conflate respect for the principles of justice with not being concerned about women who were sexually assaulted but fail to make their case in court.

It is unfortunate that the guilty sometimes go free. This is the price of the presumption of innocence and other rules of justice. Either you can prove your case in court or to some tribunal - or you can not.

What are you suggesting here - that we convict on the basis of he said/she said ? Should we just throw out "equal justice under the law" ?

 

Perhaps you are right.

At some level we in America do share a lot of our beliefs.

The political problem right now is more one of abject partisanship - partisanship so strong that we can even see partisan assaults on democracy in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Maryland, Texas, etc. Surely democracy is one of the root beliefs we SHARE!

We see Trump spread hate for partisan gain. Hate isn't some sort of guiding principle of either political party (I hope). It's an expression of the evil that infects our system today.

 

Well, they ought to use their time and space to present the broadest possible range of views, ones that include what you deem "hate speech." How are these students supposed to defend the idea of a pluralistic society against a formidable array of criticism if they have never heard it?

Or are you going to rely on broader censorship to protect students from hearing alternative viewpoints? This censorship you advocate is a dangerous thing. People get radicalized when they discover they have been fed lies and misinformation from their "educational institutions."

 

Republicans willfully turned this into a zero sum game back in 2010, and you can see how it has worked to their benefit.

 

I've encountered the ugliest worldviews pretty close up and read my fair of hate speech going through academia. Learning about the history is vitally important, but that doesn't mean you should invite Richard Spencer to try and influence your students. There shouldn't be an assumed neutrality when dealing with certain perspectives, though you should try to understand them from someone who has held them.

 

Why not invite Richard Spencer? Hear what he has to say and then refute his arguments. That is more effective, I would think, than having students discovering Spencer's ideas elsewhere with no opportunity for response. Unless you are afraid that you can't refute them, of course.

And Richard Spencer is an extreme example. Right now you couldn't get a venue for Jordan Peterson at many Universities.

 

It's not that women fail to make their cases in court. The failure comes before that. The number of cases of sexual assault that actually get tried in court is something like 7 per thousand. The actual conviction rate is quite high - once they reach court.

The concern being expressed by the president and others is that the 993 sexual assaults that never even go to trial might actually start being taken seriously.

And, the president is concerned about the MEN, not the women who were sexually assaulted!!! (Of course, this ties in with his own stated behavior toward women as being play things.)

When 10s of thousands of rape kits go untested for DECADES, you KNOW that rape is not considered a serious crime in America. Today, we don't even COUNT rape kits. And, the idea that we take other sexual assaults as being serious is also just plain nonsense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...do-next/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.23740d67fbc7

 

Trump is a piece of work no doubt. A symptom of the problem.

The problem as I see it is the Establishment - which consists of both red and blue political and bureaucratic elite and the big money influence.

It is not where they disagree that is the main problem (its a problem but not the main one). It is the things on which they agree that is the problem.

The "Hot Button Issues" serve to divide the people which keeps the Establishment in power. Many of these issues are fairly easily rectified.

Look at "Abortion" for example. You almost never hear the MSM (or the left politicians) even discuss the main arguments in relation to abortion - never mind educate the people in relation to the good arguments.

Fact: Experts Disagree. There is no "scientific consensus" on when human life begins - never mind if the single cell at conception is a living human.

We do not even need to get into the various sides of the debate from a legal perspective. We just have to establish "Experts disagree". Go on Wiki or hold up a Developmental Biology textbook which gives the 5 main scientific perspectives on "when human life begins". Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological.

Only one puts the "beginning" at conception - and this is not the same as saying "a living human exists".

Experts disagree = "we don't know" From a legal perspective this is an open and shut case.

From a legal perspective we have competing interests that must be weighed on the scales of Justice. On the one side you have the rights of the woman. This nation was founded on respect for individual liberty - that individual liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Wow .. that is alot of weight to overcome on one side. What do we have on the other. How do we value "We don't know".

It is simply no contest. And that is that. If we get into the later stages of pregnancy it is a different story (things get complicated) but in the early stages it is a slam dunk.

So why are we still having this debate. Why has the public not been educated by the Dems. Why does the Republicans Establishment - who would have a much better chance at winning elections going forward - given the demographic time bomb - if they stopped flogging this dead horse - keep this up ?

Answer - because they want division but more importantly they want people distracted from the real issues - the ones that the Establishment agrees on.

 

I do not agree that educational institutions should engage with those whose speech is reasonably describable as hate speech. I do believe that the student body should contribute to decisions on who is invited to speak at university sponsored events.

Educated people can talk about pluralistic and nonpluralistic societies without injecting hate. Arguments on all sides can be presented.

I have no problem with educational institutions rejecting speakers who are outside the range of educational approach to these issues.

Also, students do have the right to protest.

 

What about the sides with arguments that you, in your wisdom, reasonably describe as hate? If not, then you don't have all sides. Are you afraid that you can't refute them?

Of course you don't. You approve of the censorship of certain ideas. (And calling indoctrination an "educational approach" is a euphemism I will treasure for a long time.)

But they don't have the right to impede the peaceable assembly of other students who wish to hear speakers with politically incorrect ideas. Or at least I don't think so. This is another issue on which I suspect we disagree.

 

I do not see anything we disagree on here. I have said for years that police are too busy with pot smokers, prostitutes and speeding tickets to have time to go after real crime. Then we had the Sessions clown trying to reignite the war on Pot ... something that should have been put down during the Obama administration.

"Speaking of things they agree on" ? How is it that Pot is still a Schedule 1 Drug ? Have you heard the clown responses when this issue has come up in Congress.... a complete refusal to admit that Pot is not as dangerous as Heroin- Meth and so on.

Leaving Drugs aside... sorry switching to legal drugs. How is it that price fixing is still legal regardless of whether it is red or blue in power. "The Drug Lobby perhaps" ... go figure. How is it that we have this ridiculous system where we pay double what other first world nations have - for care that is not as good in many ways - and manage not to have universal healthcare. Obamacare did not change this... it was repackaging of the same old bad idea of mixing a massive bureaucracy with private for profit. The worst of both worlds... massive bureaucracy coupled with Oligopolism - anti competitive practices, and price fixing galore.

check this out https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

So what .. is it going to be the conservatives that bring forth Universal healthcare. The KOCH Brothers are now on board.

Transparency in Gov't - Gone - and made worse under Obama. Going after those who tried to out criminality in Gov't while the Guilty go free (Clapper).

The Patriot act was transformed to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act" under Obama. So one side makes it our patriotic duty to get on our knees and give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security and the other side doubles down.

10 years after 911 and Obama starts arming and supporting Al Qaeda. What ?? We still fight alongside Al Qaeda in Yemen and are complicit in horrible war crimes and human rights atrocity.

In 2013 it was made legal for our intelligence agencies to create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens. We spend 130 Billion per year (including the black budget) on our intelligence agencies - much of which goes to defense contractors. That is double the total federal spend of Mexico - a nation that ranks 11th in the world in terms of purchasing power. To do what ? Spy on us and create propaganda.

I am just getting started but this is too long already. "Its the ESTABLISHMENT" which is controlled by international financiers and national oligarchs.

 

ABSOLUTELY. It's been a huge advantage for Republicans to directly and continually assault democracy.

Also, our system has some major features that hobble democracy, mostly specifically supported by Republicans.

We have Washington, DC, which is more populous than two states, yet has ZERO representation in congress. Their budget is controlled by the House - taxation (and expenditure) without representation in the House.

We have the electoral college, which benefits states with tiny populations over the states that hold the majority of our population and have very different issues of significance.

Puerto Rico's head of state is the US President(!!) The people are Americans, but they don't have full protection of our constitution, are subject to US federal law, can't vote for the president (unless they move to a state). There are US Supreme Court rulings that explicitly include or exclude Puerto Rico. They are limited by US trade law in how they interact with other nations. The FBI, FEMA, TSA, Social Security, and a US federal court all operate in Puerto Rico as if it were a state ...

... a state that can't vote!

 

The United States began as a liberal experiment. It is enshrined in the preamble to the constitution.

Today liberalism is greatest along the West Coast. One doesn't see the horrible things conservatives say will happen, when an area is controlled by liberals. Does Washington and Oregon look like Soviet Russia? Obviously not. Wherever did you get your ideology from? It is greatly flawed as it doesn't reflect reality.

Liberalism comes from a scientific worldview, conservatism from a belief worldview.

 

Very good points.

I'd even go further on abortion. ALL Americans want a lower rate of abortion. The issue is how to do it. Why can't we notice how other countries are doing it WITHOUT using the laws against women - which is really the only disagreement.

In this last go-around, we have deeply Republican states supporting increases in Medicare. How about coming together on that?

And, we hear how Dems can't accept laws against illegal immigration. Yet under Obama we had a bipartisan committee including an equal number of Republicans (including Rubio and McCain) who came up with a comprehensive solution that passed the Senate and would have passed the House had Boehner not blocked the vote. McCain championed that solution. Rubio argued in favor, too.

And, that bill had tens of billions of new money for Mexican border wall improvement.

These issues are being weaponized - even when we pretty much AGREE!!

We're having wars over partisan victory, NOT over what's good for America.

 

I doubt that's much of a problem. The cases which have arisen involve those who are pretty much agreed by all to be on the hate speech side.

And, I don't have any say in this at all, so you don't have to worry about me!

I think the cases were talking about are those that are sanctioned by the educational institution, coordinated by them and take place in their space on their dime - and that of the students.

If a speaker wants to put up an amplifier in some central campus green, rent out the church across the street, or whatever, that's a totally different rule set. Most educational institutions have groups of students, professors and others that operate that way.

 

I'd point out that Obama and others have warned that restrictions on speakers at such institutions (as well as other venues) have become too restrictive and the receptions have become too intolerant.

And, those speakers who have been disinvited have NOT been limited to those associated with hate speech or to the right political wing.

 

Big money has to much influence over our media, political process, politicians and elite bureaucrats. It is not like it is some "cabal" or "star Chamber" pulling the strings. There are various competing interests with different agenda's. These interests often conflict with each other.

There are also things on which these money interests agree. Like in physics - when you apply enough force in one direction against an object - the object moves in that direction.

Every time a Regulation or Tax Law is made - the Oligopoly is at the table - and perhaps has a right to be there. The problem is that the folks who are supposed to be representing the interests of the people are either influence by or in the pocket of the Oligopoly. It is not like the Oligopoly win's every table but, over time, table after table, they win enough such that the rules of the game are skewed in favor of the Oligopoly.

Why is it that it is illegal for medicade to use its massive purchasing power to get lower drug prices ? We have drug companies writing legislation - giving it to an individual in congress - who then submits this legislation.

Not everyone is on the take but - human nature makes it difficult to resist. Would you be the one to shoot the goose laying the Golden eggs ? To run against a herd of stampeding Bulls ?

It is a "pay to play" system. If you play - you get paid - and everyone knows it. Some cushy lobbyist position, a seat on some board of directors - there are many ways to get paid.

Did you think it was for her good looks and charming personality that Hillary gets 250K a pop for a 15 min speech at a wall street banker luncheon ? Of course not. It is for a job well done. If you play - you get paid - and everyone knows it.

It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed. This is human nature - unleashed.