Saturday, April 18, 2009
Why do campus lefties try to interdict speech?
The academic left, which obsesses about "McCarthyism," has been interdicting speech that it does not like for at least forty years. See, e.g., this episode from 1972, when the TigerHawk Father protested just such tactics at the University of Iowa. Now it has gotten so bad that conservative speakers feel the need for bodyguards when on campus. One gets the sense that their fear is less paranoid than prudent, given the numerous episodes in the last few years involving at least physical intimidation.
Why is the academic left afraid of the marketplace of ideas?
(Via Blackberry, while attending Drexel University's "admitted students day".)
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Apr 18, 11:24:00 AM:
I am no fan of Tom Tancredo, the bland one issue candidate, but I am sad and unhappy he was driven from his recent campus talk at UNC. There were protesters marching and chanting outside the venue. There were the usual hissers in the audience and a couple of people attempting to use his appearance to display a political banner in front of him but those things are relatively benign and expected. What was not expected was the stone through the window, the mace in the hallways, the fire alarm being set-off and nervous security people believing they had no alternative but to stop the talk and send the audience away.
Then of course, there is the very disturbing arrest of a video blogger at USC, there to interview attendees as they entered an award ceremony for Katie Couric.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 11:35:00 AM:
"Now it has gotten so bad that conservative speakers feel the need for bodyguards when on campus. One gets the sense that their fear is less paranoid than prudent, given the numerous episodes in the last few years involving at least physical intimidation."
From the very same folks who repeatedly claim that "violence never solved anything". The Left in full Orwellian action is the epitome of projection.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sat Apr 18, 01:14:00 PM:
It's not 'fear.' It's absolute conviction of the superiority of their ideas.
The basic element of a 'progressive' is a Kantian belief in 'progress.' That is, there is a linear line of human development with barbarism at one end and utopia at the other. They believe that they, being 'progressive,' are driving humanity toward utopia. Anyone who opposes them, by definition, is therefore striving for regression.
For many, such 'regressives' are not simply wrong... they know what they're doing. That makes them evil.
It's nothing more than religious fanaticism in a clever disguise.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 02:59:00 PM:
DawnF is on the right track, it is an absolute conviction of superiority.
I'll offer another facet of the same gem for consideration.
It is also an absolute faith that the world is controlled by an alliance of powerful people. That somehow all but an Master Elite are enslaved.
The well known "opiate of the people" phrase sums it up.
So why the leftist violence?
Simple. Violence is justified because the ME routinely employs much more violence. And has methods far, far, far worse.
When the brutal evil and acts of the ME aren't apparent it just proves how clever they are. And how dumb YOU are if you don't see what is being done to you.
People such as Tancredo and Coulter can be seen as either agents - sort of like lobbyists - or foolish idiots, of the ME. Either way they speak to enchant and deceive, that the masses will remain enchained.
K
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 06:21:00 PM:
Why the Left attack conservatives and stifle free speech is that they are Hypocrites. Evil is hypocritical. Their attack on McCarthyism is just that. When they are in power they engage in censorship, and attacking their opponents. The recent report by Homeland Security about "Right-wing extremism" is a case in point where pro-lifers, anti-immigrationists, and vets are labeled terrorists.
What the Left seeks to do is portray themselves as the middle in order to deceive, and then, when in power, do exactly what they accuse their foes of doing.
The Left is never about the Rule of Law so they have no consistency. They are free to do as they please like their sexual conduct. They are adikia and so their actions show up as hypocrisy. The Left is evil. Always has been.
By (c)2014 Richard L. Kent, Esq. (MichiganSilverback at gmail dot com), at
Sat Apr 18, 07:29:00 PM:
I'll simplify it.
They're a bunch of stupid and evil Nazi thugs.
And I mean that literally.
The Nazis were *leftists.*
Any question?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Apr 18, 08:18:00 PM:
"The Nazis were *leftists.*"
Does *anyone* actually study objective history and politics anymore?
The Nazis were self-described conservatives. They allied politically with other rightist groups, especially monarchists, before they seized power. They thought that a good weekend consisted of a fiery speech, some beer, and kicking the crap out of communists in street battles.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 11:43:00 PM:
Socialism v. NAZI is confusing. I'll try to explain why.
The NAZI were supposedly a Nationalistic Socialist party. That is, a workers party.
The Nationalist distinction was important, it was the key to attacking the communists. The communists were strong in Germany (and Italy, I'll get to that). And its strength lay in the support of German workers.
But the communists could be labeled as tools of Russia and international socialism. It was also convenient that international socialism had considerable linkage to Jewish intellectuals.
The Nazis really gave little thought to socialism. They weren't worrying about private property or wealth. They focused on control.
Control was also the method of the Fascists and Mussolini in Italy. In Italy Mussolini had left the Communists and became their political enemy.
Don't pay any attention to what the Nazis said about socialism. They said what might useful at the moment.
Hitler gave rousing speeches saying the Nazis were socialists.
Verily, they were absolute Socialists with a capital S.
I doubt he ever thought five minutes about what socialism meant!
If Hitler had founded the NAZI party he might never have mentioned socialism or workers. But the name and aims were already in place when he joined. He just used the words he found.
K
By Dan Kauffman, at
Sun Apr 19, 05:42:00 AM:
I could not get your bodyguard link to work but I copied the shortcut and extracted this part which worked
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000847769030489.html
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Apr 19, 07:51:00 AM:
Thanks, Dan. Link is fixed in the post, now. One of the hazards of blogging by Blackberry.
By , at
Sun Apr 19, 02:53:00 PM:
And, it will get much, much worse. As even the old time media begins to realize that Obama is an inept, empty suit owned by pimps, every word that might be construed as criticism of The One (PBUH) will be viciously attacked and labeled racist hate speech. Speech labeled as such will not be allowed to be voiced.
