Protesters topple Silent Sam Confederate statue at UNC

Really? You don't think that rich and powerful nations can and do impose their culture on less powerful societies?

 

Liberals who argue the 'treason' and 'no right to secede' line are actually falling into a trap.

Do this thought experiment: suppose the South -- or any other part of the US -- did not have slavery.
Now suppose that the overwhelming majority of the people in that region, over a long period of time, and as a settled notion, wanted to separate and rule themselves. (Think any of a half-dozen such cases where this is, or could become, or become again, an issue: Catalonia in Spain, Quebec in Canada, Scotland and both halves of Northern Ireland in the UK, Eastern Ukraine, the Kurds of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey ... many countries are in fact 'prisonhouses of nations' as Lenin called the Tsarist empire.)

Should they be allowed to go, even if the 'majority' outside wanted them to stay in? If they were denied this right, would they be morally wrong to try to take it by force? (I don't say 'wise', just morally wrong.)

Liberals who make the 'legal' case against the South seem to be saying: if there is a democratic government -- and perhaps, if the original nation was formed 'voluntarily' -- then no part of it, no matter what, can ever break away, unless the majority wants them to.

This is actually a very illiberal argument, and is usually made by hard-core nationalists from the dominant nation who oppose separation, with the latter almost always associated with the Right.

Today, most civilized nations recognize, if only tacitly, some form of the right of secession. Usually they want a super-majority for it, and maybe repeated voting, but they don't believe that those who really want to leave and to govern themselves, should be put down by armed force. (We'll see how the situation in Spain plays out, but I would bet that if the Catalan separatists can command a strong majority for secession, over a lengthy period of time, that eventually they'll get it. They sure wouldn't have got it under Franco, and apparently not under the rule of some of the liberals posting here.)

But that seems to be the position of those who choose legalistic grounds for invading the South. Lincoln had to use these grounds, for tactical reasons. But I think they're actually a poor precedent for those who believe in the consent of the governed.

 

yep, many Trump supporters suffer from it

 

Trump is President, no clue what your talking about, Trump could of left the flag done if he wanted, he did not have to listen to democrats

 

Since they posted their pictures all over the WWW , Find them , arrest them and punish them to the full extent of the Law.

 

Liberals sling mud, too.

Okay.

 

I could respond that I don't like the "too", but I actually don't even see any mud being slung by you for me to be the "too" referred to. It's not important, though.

 

If Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta, McClellan might have defeated Lincoln in November and cut a deal with the CSA.

The white South needs to get over this



and that would help society get over "white guilt" that continues to feed black anger and black racism. The people living in the past and promoting grievances that complicate addressing issues involving race relations today are a pain in the arse.

 

I wasn't thinking about either of us.

 

Yes ... it's always a temptation to reply to the other side's idiots, but Comrade Gramsci ought to be our guide here: he advised his Marxist co-thinkers that in intellectual warfare we have to do the opposite of what we do in physical warfare, i.e. we have to attack our enemy's strongest points. At least do that first.

I think most fair-minded people who follow a discussion will themselves discount mudslinging and insults, and when one replies to them it often wrecks the thread. When I come to a new thread I like to start on page one and read everyone's contributions, but so often you get to pages where it's just a long string of "Look in the mirror!" and "You're talking about yourself" etc etc etc. ... and you don't feel like ploughing through all of the childish playground taunts and counter-taunts. Present company as always excepted from any implied criticism.

 

The federal government in Canada said Quebec separation can be discussed but actually passed legislation that says in effect that if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec. The northern part of Quebec is populated and controlled by the Cree aboriginals who have made it clear they have no interest in leaving Canada. As well, there are large areas south of the St. Lawrence River with significant English populations who also want to stay in Canada.

Would states wanting to leave the Union be divisible? Would Southern California, eastern Washington and eastern Oregon want to remain in the country? What if California, Oregon, and Washington wish to leave and remove our entire West Coast?

Would conservatives make a case against California, Oregon, and Washington leaving? What about their share of the federal debt? What about our access to the Pacific Ocean?

We don't know that conservatives outside the South would be sympatheic to separation.

The South didn't talk about negotiating an exit (what happens to U.S. citizens in exiting states, what about areas of states that don't want to leave?). Southerners talked about a residual state power to walk away.

 

I don't believe this nonsense about it being so hard to be civil.

And, please cite your claim of "breaking up meetings on campuses".

Sure. You can find individuals who are both smart and conservative. But, that is certainly not my point. My point is that America accepts stupid and uninformed as acceptable today. When we have questions that clearly have answers from science, we do not go to science. We're more likely to hear about how horrible our campuses are, what disgusting nonsense they drill into unsuspecting minds, etc.

I don't see us as a nation caring to find educated thought, whether it comes from the right or the left, from science or fiction, etc. Look at your own comments on this "PC" thing the right wing dredged up as a way to target thought and debate.

Yes. THAT is what I'm worried about.

So, I need to ask you:

Why do you think some product of education is a waste if YOU can't pick a paragraph out of the middle of it and understand it???

How do you apply that to other topics? What SHOULD the man on the street think when he picks a paragraph out of a physics lesson on quantum mechanics? or biology? Or chemistry?

Is the response, "I don't understand this, thus I need to defund education."???

Or, what?

 

I don't know what conservatives would think about these cases. I don't actually know of any writings or principles in any of the strains of existing conservatism that speak to the question of separation in a democratic state. My instinct says that most American conservatives would oppose it, but I can't be sure.

In this issue, I'm guided by Lenin, who I think took the consistently democratic position regarding the right to nations to self-determination -- of course real life turned out to be more complicated. (An analogy with the South, in fact, in post-Revolutionary Russia, too complicated to go into here.)

Almost always, nowadays, the problem is that different peoples are geographically interpenetrated, mixed up, so separation implies a bloody civil war about who is to rule. This happened after WWI, and with Yugoslavia in the 90s.

My guess is that at some point in the future -- decades ahead -- it will become an issue with Hawaii, where the indigenous population and maybe others will want to become a Chinese protectorate, as their power grows and ours shrinks.

In any separation, there are always practical problems. When Britain got out of their Indian colony, they had to divide the assets they were leaving behind between Pakistan and India. Apparently there was a dictionary that was just cut down the middle.

 

Not sure I understand you here. Most conservatives claim to be for civility. Political Correctness is not mainly about that. Suggestion: look up "micro-aggressions".
Or let me cite a particular case: if I'm a professor or teacher, and a student hands in an essay with mis-spellings and grammatical errors, do you think it's racist, or a 'micro-aggression', to correct them?

I think we probably don't read the same news sources. What would you think of this one? I don't want to turn this post into another mini-essay, so I'll wait to get your response. Then perhaps I'll show you how some groups which have traditionally defended free speech for everyone are now moving away from that position.

I don't know what you're referring to here. Could you give me some examples of "answers from science" that are responded to (presumably by conservatives) by saying "how horrible our campuses are"?

I agree entirely. The level of debate in the US is appallingly low. The level of education, including of its college students, is appallingly low. Part of the problem is in the pre-college education system, and is only peripherally related to what's happening in Higher Education. That's another argument for another thread, where we could discuss School Choice, 'Progressive Education', discipline in schools, etc.
I don't agree that the right wing dredged up this PC thing as a way to target thought and debate though. We're very happy to think and to share our thoughts with the world, and to debate. It's not conservatives who are attacking liberal and Leftist meetings.

I'm not for defunding education. The opposite in fact. My point is that Judith Butler, a highly respected academic on the Left, is spouting nonsense, not difficult but real theory that can only be expressed in highly abstract language. It's designed to intimidate -- ordinary students read it, can't understand it, and think, "Whoa, she's an Einstein." She's not, believe me.

Quantum mechanics -- mystifying though the Copenhagen Interpretation is to me and much as I would like to get back to something more 'traditional'-- is not nonsense, and the same for the hard ideas of biology and chemistry. I can't explain many phenomena in physics without using differential equations and vector calculus, or in chemistry without hybrid orbitals, or in biology without the Hardy-Weinberg equations, but they're real enough. Give me enough time and I or any good teacher can lead any reasonably intelligent person to an understanding of what they mean. [Okay, 'enough time' might mean two or three years of daily study.] But Butler's stuff, like a lot of postmodern spoutings, is vacuous.

I don't know of any thinking conservatives, or any liberals, who dispute the laws of science. [One exception: religious fundamentalists, who I would accept are 'on the Right' today, although this was not always the case.] There are sometimes disputes about the applications of science, or how to interpret scientific work -- many people on the Right -- I'm not one of them -- challenge the concept of anthropogenic global warming and there are some very smart people in that camp; some people, mainly on the Left or at least congruent to it, challenge the use of Genetically Modified organisms, and I think there are at least a few genuine scientists among them. There may be some conservatives in that camp too -- I'm not sure. (I used to think that only liberalish/hippyish/New Age crystal-healers were among the anti-vaccination crowd, until I read some study that claimed even more anti-vaxxers were conservatives, which surprised me. So I'm agnostic on conservatives and GM.)

One problem with internet arguments is that, unlike face-to-face discussions, you can't quickly get an idea of how much the other guy knows about this and that. So you may already know what I'm going to say, in which case I'm sorry ... I'm not trying to be patronizing.

The young Leftists of the 60s and 70s were disappointed: the Revolution didn't happen in the US or Europe -- they got Reagan instead. The Revolution in the Third World didn't turn out so great either: they got Cambodia, and the Iranian Revolution which they cheered on at first turned into something they didn't expect. Neither did the victory of the Marxist Mugabe in Rhodesia now Zimbabwe work out so well. Revolutionary China was also a shock. So a lot of their academic wing turned to 'post-modernism'. I won't go into this form of sophisticated BS. I'll just say that it was liberals who have done the best job of demolishing it. I highly recommend some books: The Sokal Hoax and The Higher Superstition -- the Academic Left and its Quarrel with Science and Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. They're all available on Amazon (just follow my links) for a few bucks in used editions, and great fun to read, if you are, like me, a rationalist and pro-science. As I say, none of them are written by conservatives.

Let me give you another example of where Left wing Political Correctness has been harmful: Have a look here -- it's something the good PC liberals in the Portland, Oregon Public School System foisted on Black children ... maybe still do, I don't know. Here's what Black children were -- are? -- taught, after being taught that the Egyptians were Black -- an excerpt from page 41:

Utter tosh, as I'm sure you'll agree, which these white-guilt liberals wouldn't dare teach to white or Asian children -- but for Blacks, these white liberals think it's okay. (By the way, this was first exposed by a rationalist/atheist group, with, I suspect, very few conservative members.) A general critique of this garbage -- part of the fashionable Afro-Centrist movement -- was made by the American Federation of Teachers, and can be found here.

So ... I don't know whether you are just not aware of what's happening on American campuses, or are aware and are happy with it -- perhaps it's a bit of both. If the former, I hope you'll look at my links and think about them. I don't think Political Correctness is actually a part of genuine liberalism. If the latter, we'll have to agree to disagree, or keep arguing.

 

Here is what it means. Marx thought that the economic system (the so-called "relations of production") determined social relations which were thought of as a "superstructure" erected on the relations of production.

Althuss was a pretty orthodox Marxist and so taught that social relations formed a more less stable "structure" built on economic relations. Our author suggests that a different idea, i.e. that social relations are not stable but change over time even though the economic relations don't change.

Without reading the whole thing, it is possible that she is advocating a "cultural marxism" that seeks to undermine capitalism (clearing the way for socialism) not by attacking the economic relationships but attacking the social relationships.,

So, for instance, instead of eliminating marriage (an obviously oppressive institution) by eliminating capitalism the idea is to eliminate capitalism by eliminating marriage (along with other social relations.)

 

I do not condone violence as a form of legitimate protest in a civil setting. However, I don't understand the reason that the racist was sponsored by that school. It's not like students (or anyone else) needs to hear more arguments for racism. My bet is that the protest started the minute the event was announced. I would note that many schools include students in the decisions concerning who will be invited to speak. Guidelines can require balanced representation.

In too many of your cases there isn't enough context to allow meaningful comment. The Portland piece could be used constructively in a number of ways. Obviously, I wouldn't agree with the content, but a student could be asked to comment on the piece from various points of view, to summarize the content, to form an opposing view, to identify sources, or whatever.

PC is really no more than a political epithet. "You're just being PC" is a statement that the speaker thinks you are "liberal"(?) trash. It doesn't have any legitimate meaning beyond that.

You're comment about Edith Butler is all about her style and the highly improbable suggestion that she holds her position because nobody can understand her. There ARE people who understand her. Her position, awards and books are highly well received - and NOT because you can't understand her.

Oh yes, and your comment about correcting work is again missing any context. Corrections are a common occurrence in education. And, as in any other human interaction, corrections can be made in ways that are helpful or are supremely insulting.

 

Well ... you've done better than I did. I can see why she -- no doubt a militant feminist -- might want to revise Althusser. But I still can't understand her.

 

Supid and uninformed used to pipe down when their arguments were shot full of holes, but no more. Now, we have raised voices and assertions about free speech rights.

Take climate change. We have some rightwingers denying it exists, or if it does it isn't man made, and on the left we have folks acting as if stopping an oil pipeline from being built will save the planet.

People don't want to do hard things. I taught adults how to use computers for years. The stories I could tell...

 

OK, but remember that you picked her out as an example of a problem that is widespread in education in the USA.

 

For decades, science has been pointing to our mining of fossil carbon as being significant.

The continued building of fossil fuel infrastructure is one thing that is susceptible to protest. It's not like protesting at a pumpjack somewhere is going to raise awareness.

I agree with your "hard things" point. We have refused to do what is necessary to slow/stop climate change, because it isn't free and easy, and bigoil isn't the focus.

We're even politically opposed to helping America compete in the clean energy sector.

Instead, we're being taken back to a bygone era while the rest of the world is moving forward.

In the long run, that's not going to work.

What do YOU think we should do about it?

 

Yikes .. I'll bet you are a lawyer.

Yes, of course, I can correct a paper in an insulting way. That's not what I'm talking about. This is not a criticism of you, but I don't think you have been following these things. I'm talking about normal correction of misspellings and bad grammar. Dear Lord, the real nutty PC professors are even saying mathematics is racist!

Political Correctness is not a synonym of 'liberal'. It has a specific meaning.

An example of Political Correctness would be if someone gave a talk at an academic gathering and spouted a lot of nonsense that everyone in the audience knew was nonsense ... but then they were afraid to say anything, because the speaker was Black.

Charles Murray is not a racist. This is typical of the Left: label anyone they want to shut down as a white supremacist or white nationalist. I'm sure he would be willing to debate any of those people, but .. they can't debate. They're lying, slimy, dishonest crypto-fascists in their methods. That's why they use violence against their political opponents.

Students should be exposed to all points of view. As for involving them in deciding who can speak on campus -- dear Lord. That would just mean that the Poitically Correct commissars would veto anyone that might hurt their feelings. Sorry, but students are there to learn. They should be exposed to all points of view, Left and Right. The Left hate that. So they show us what things would be like if they had real control: Big Brother.

Please translate the quoted Judith Butler paragraph. I can't understand her, and neither can you, because there is nothing to understand (except, perhaps, some banal platitudes -- but then if she said what she meant, no one would be impressed. The fact that she is 'highly well received' should show you how phoney these people are.

How in the world anyone could defend the Portland crap ..ESP, 'psychoenergetics' ... . but some people think, 'Good enough for Blacks'. Either that, or they're afraid to stand up to demagogues.

Anyone interested in the 'Afrocentrism' nonsense should read Mary Lefkowitz's Not Out Of Africa - how Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History.

Liberalism is dying.

 

That article isn't about correcting papers.

That's a matter of comporting, not of PC. If people are afraid of asking questions in a question and answer section, that's being afraid to as questions in a question and answer sesction.

Arguing that skin color is tied to intelligence is what we did at the time of the Civil War - when the Confederacy declared that they were of a different species and rightly suited to slavery as the best "we" can do for "them".

No, I don't agree that speakers should be chosen without regard to their topic or point of view. The problem here is that there is a scarce resource - speaking events. The educational institution as objectives related to education. There is nowhere NEAR the time to accept all points of view.

The fact that you don't understand her is one of the reasons she is THERE!!

Classes aren't designed such that you understand them without introduction, understanding of terms, and the rest of the reading and study required.

Again, it's like saying quantum mechanics should be cut, because someone doesn't understand it. The reason it is THERE is because someone doesn't understand it.

AGAIN, I didn't see anything in your post that would even REMOTELY suggest that the purpose of the Portland piece you cited was to cause people to believe the stuff in that piece.

 

Dear Lord ..... we are doomed.

 

You are not supposed to understand her. She has some very modest and rather dubious ideas. If you understood her it would be too easy to expose the fallacies and the shallowness of her thought. I supported myself for a while by writing term papers for college students. The trick is to throw enough jargon into the paper to disguise the at best tenuous understanding of the author. The typical graduate of a gender studies program, for instance, learns a great variety of polysyllabic phrases to express the idea that men are pigs. A female worker at the Tyson Chicken assembly line already knows this but her lack of eloquence bars her from more lucrative employment.

The most florid examples of jargon obscured ignorance, btw, is produced by schools of education which train our public school teachers.

 

With Lenin, people had rights until they got in the way of "the people" exercising their rights.

After WW1, a lot of Germans ended up in other folks' countries, in the end causing a lor of problems.

I couldn't say, but China isn't a nice place. Hawaiians might take a pass.

The Brits left behind a mess in Canada, too.