Thoughts on the knee-jerk leftist/”progressive” impulse to shut people up:
It’s an interesting question: do liberals try to silence their opponents because of an inherent authoritarian tendency, or merely because they are losing the argument?
Like John Hinderaker, I think it’s both.
The quoted sentence is rather perverse, which I’m sure is much of the point.
Losing the argument? What have they lost?
Most of the time, they start any new speech by screaming how they’ll be wronged for their beliefs, post that speech. Yet, they’ve gotten more and more of their way in the last 60 years.
Their very victim mentality is HOW they’ve gotten power. They’ve convinced people they deserve something NOW, for wrongs other people suffered, in other times. It’s why we have the Messiah in office.
He deserved a chance NOW, because Dr. King was shot THEN.
IMHO, they’ve lost no arguments. They’ve staged it to look like they did and have stuffed their beliefs down our throats.
Losing the argument? What have they lost?
I think that’s a bit of the point. Intellectually, their arguments fail. They are illogical and hypocritical. If all they did was attempt to fairly debate the arguments, they lose everytime. It’s why Obama said many things during the Primary to people who lacked critical thinking to see simply fallacy. But during the general election debates, he lied about his beliefs and went to the vague “hope and change”.
He, of course, couldn’t threaten violence to win in 2008. But these journalist, in their echo chamber, are doing so. And again, because it is easier for them to squash the opposition by violence since they can not logically argue their position. It’s why Jim calls us “violent, vitriolic, racists”, and then doesn’t back it up. He can’t possibly debate that his ideas are better because they are not. So, he resorts to the easy road of flinging attacks.
Leland, most people don’t care if they lose the argument, if they can go home with all the prizes at the end of the day.
And that’s where the left is now. They’ve got all the prizes.
I live in one of the most liberal states in the union and I have noticed two things when talking to leftists. When talking politics, younger people use anger and a raised voice to try and intimidate who they are talking to. Older Hippies can have a calm rational conversation.
I have more respect for the older generation because when they were protesting in the 60’s they were willing to go to jail for civil disobedience. Breaking the law to drew attention to their cause and going to jail was a badge of honor.
Today’s protesters feel entitled to break the law to promote their cause and not go to jail.
I think the issue is a lot more subtle. Yes, they want to speak freely themselves but deny it to others. As far as the issues, they all have some element of truth in them or they would have no power to tug at the heart as they do. They couldn’t persuade anyone if there wasn’t some core of truth.
The problem is the solutions they come up with stink and that’s being polite.
Take immigration as an example. Where is the core of truth?
It’s not anything they try to argue. The truth is America gives them opportunity they don’t have at home. But they don’t talk about that; instead they argue nothing can be done and you’re a racist for even suggesting that anything can.
What about the enablers? This is more complicated but the core seems to be a common anti-American sentiment. Scratch a progressive and find someone who hates America and works toward it’s destruction which means having absolutely no regard for the concept of national sovereignty.
The only way they can win the argument is to lie and shut others down. They just want to win.
We need to take the same attitude. We win, they lose. Not letting them get an inch. Ever. Or do we not see how they’ve worn us down to win and are now destroying what they’ve won.
Bush hated dissent, he had the secret service lock up protesters wearing t-shirts and would ban demonstrators to zones a mile from his speeches.
Here on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus we have a number of plaques in front of buildings commemorating various milestones and scientific discoveries made here, of tests for milk fat that enabled the modern dairy industry, a discovery that aided in the mass production of penicillin to save our wounded soldiers in WW-II, and many others.
I would like to see many more of these plaques. I would like a plaque in front of Sterling Hall to read, “Here in front of Sterling Hall in August 1970, three men protesting the Vietnam War detonated a massive car bomb in front of what they mistakingly thought was the “Army Math Research Center.” The main-stream media has never picked up on that error, and articles recounting this crime that killed one graduate researcher show a stock picture of a high-rise building that has nothing to do this this site. One of the three conspirators remains, to this day, a fugitive from justice.”
Or another plaque, “Here, in 1966, a group of UW students shouted down Senator Edward Kennedy and prevented him from speaking. There is video tape of this happening that is seldom shown as it does not “fit the narrative.””
Or yet another plaque, “UW History alumnus Haynes Johnson prides himself as belonging to another group of students giving an equally rude reception to the junior Senator from Wisconsin. Declassified transcripts of the “VENONA” cable intercepts, however, vindicate what Joseph McCarthy was claiming.”
Bush hated dissent, he had the secret service lock up protesters wearing t-shirts and would ban demonstrators to zones a mile from his speeches.
We would be lost in the wilderness, if it weren’t for our resident, “What would Bush do?” troll. jack, you do realize that Bush has been out of office for more than two years, don’t you? At some point, you’re going to have to obsess about something else.
Bush hated dissent… would ban demonstrators to zones a mile from his speeches
I’d say that was more likely the Secret Services enforcing “rule of law”, but hey, if you want to blame Bush, I guess we can blame Obama for calling out the SWAT to break up a Tea Party protest. Wait til you see what the government does to stop shark hunters…
Perhaps jack can explain this: Gulf Oil Spill: Media Access ‘Slowly Being Strangled Off’
paul
add one plaque on the commerce department building ” Here 30 police officers without orders attacked protesting students ”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/twodays/peopleevents/p_police.html
from jack’s link:
Hanson was unable to convince the demonstrators filling the hallway of the Commerce building to disperse. He requested back-up from Chancellor William Sewell, who agreed that the Madison police could be summoned. This had never happened before, but town police had expected the call, and a squad of 30 men was ready to go. The Madison cops wore helmets and carried night sticks, and soon they arrived on campus. Hanson tried to broker a last-minute resolution, but student leaders were unable to agree on a compromise with Sewell. The Chancellor then directed the police to clear the protesters out.
I don’t know what happened. I certainly wasn’t there. But I can read the article and notice when people who were there tell a different story than some one is trying to suggest today. One paragraph later, the article has this:
Hackett, one of the 30 cops, had simply been ordered to clear the building; no one told him how it should be done. And he, like other Madison cops, had no riot training. But once the glass broke, as Hackett put it, “it was a matter of who’s going to win.”
so jack, why did you write this obviously false statement:
Here 30 police officers without orders attacked protesting students
Moreover, why did you put quote around it, when the actual article never says anything like that, and indeed says exactly the opposite?
I don’t know what your comment was supposed to do, which makes the fact that you are distorting the events all the more interesting. Do you think that the police are some rogue agency that, although governmental, some how isn’t directed by governmental authority? You are the one, in several threads in recent days, pushing for more government authority. Exactly how do you expect the government to enforce those laws you think they should pass?
“As student Jane Brotman recalled, Hanson got on a bullhorn and told the students they had two minutes to leave the building, but only a few seconds elapsed before police smashed the glass doors out front and stormed inside. Hackett, one of the 30 cops, had simply been ordered to clear the building; no one told him how it should be done. And he, like other Madison cops, had no riot training. ”
Sounds to me like a failure of Command and Control, and poor leadership.
If the Head of UW Police who should be the commanding officer, is giving time to evacuate and de-escalate and the city police who should be under the command of the Campus chief of police act without orders, then,
yes, it’s an attack without orders.
Hanson told the Chancellor that he could no longer handle the crowd and requested the Chancellor summon the Madison Police. That’s in the first sentence of the part I quoted. So jack, when you write:
If the Head of UW Police who should be the commanding officer, is giving time to evacuate and de-escalate and the city police who should be under the command of the Campus chief of police act without orders, then, yes, it’s an attack without orders.
You are ignoring that the UW Police had time to evacuate and de-escalate. Decided they couldn’t do it and requested back-up. Hanson gave the protestors one last chance to walk away, and they refused. Again, that’s all in the link you provided. I’ve now quoted it here, so you can’t confuse it. Yet you are still distorting this evidence to make a false claim completely unsupported by evidence.
I ask again, why do you continue to write an obviously false statement?