It is a reasonable reaction to walk out on, silence, or attack people who want to put you in camps or mass graves.
The issue here seems to be that there are a bunch of people who feel that anyone who disagrees with them even a little falls into that category.
An extreme example would be the recent Evergreen College occupation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=bO1agIlLlhg
This is not a discussion, debate, or even an argument. This is a Struggle Session.
Quite a few of the people being targeted are arguably liberals, with long histories of progressive political views themselves, who have been accused of blasphemy, often over slight transgressions or misunderstandings.
Mary Spellman of Clairmont-McKenna is a decent illustration of this. When people immediately turn their âoffended and outragedâ sensitivity to 11, You cannot have a peaceful society. All of us are capable of saying things that are open to misunderstanding, and we all will run into people who have different opinions than we do. The ability to remain civil in such situations is what separates us from places that are in a continuous state of violent conflict.
We can all do with a little humility, and the understanding that our opinions are just that. Opinions. People like Pence have outdated views on some subjects. And there is a pretty good chance that your views will someday seem outdated, and your grandchildren will find them absurd or even offensive. In our society, those grandchildren will humor us, or maybe give us an eye roll. In a society more prone to act on slights or offenses, we end up like Bo Yibo.
But I was not referring to those easy ones. I was referring to, say, someone as socially Liberal as you but more sympathetic to big business. Or someone as economically Liberal whose religious influences make them socially more moderate. Itâs hard to have a big tent when thereâs intolerance of moderate positions, and it creates a fertile ground for wedge issues. I certainly do not mean one must agree with or accept their arguments. But neither should one demonize them for questioning what you take to be self evident.
Didnât Spellman say that she was interested in helping student that donât fit âour moldâ in reference to the concerns of non-white non-straight students?
And the Evergreen College library sit in a response from a series of events including two black students told they had to go to the campus police where they were held in questioning and denied their legal right to leave voluntarily and the use of the bathroom after a student argued with a black student and reported the incident to the police (the same student that narcâed also showed up to these protests to protest the protests and no harm came or him). In response to this, and a few other recent racist events (such as âfunnyâ halloween costumes), the faculty agreed that a tradition of PoC students and faculty being absent for a day would be inverted so white student and faculty would be absent instead. A professor raised a stink, and called it oppression and refused to support it (even suggested to give a public lecture on the biological differences between races on that day), his email about it leaked to the students who protested his class, and then he went on Fox News and the Breitbart fodder was born. So yeah, a lot of angry students in their third gathering at the library in a few weeks - and yet the administration is being called cucks by a certain side of the fence for saying no one is getting fired or disarmed but that they would do better and thanked the students for their continued passion.
Spellman used the word âmoldâ in what she thought was an inoffensive way.
I donât really blame the students. I was that age once, and like all of us, I will never be as smart and clever as I thought I was then. But when I tried to educate my parents and professors, they were polite but pretty dismissive. And that was the right response. They remember what that age was for them, and knew that eventually I would develop a little humility, and find over time that my views would tend to mature a little, especially when I learned a little more about human nature.
There is a wrong thing to do when a kid has just taken a few 1st year courses and feels that he suddenly has all the answers to the worldâs problems. The wrong thing to do is to indulge him, confirm his intuition that he is the first of the truly enlightened, and immediately start drafting changes to laws and policies based on the studentâs superior ethics and grasp of politics.
I grew up in a very conservative part of Kentucky, and I am very torn. On the one hand, Iâve seen the damage that the prejudiced aspects of a neoconservative ideology can do. I am not a fan. On the other hand, if you donât listen to the other side you really canât expect them to listen to you, and often listening to people you donât agree with is the most effective way to come up with an argument against them. I am worried about the growing distances between the people I grew up with and my current liberal community. I am worried that at some point, if we do not listen to each other, we will lose our common language. I also worry, of course, about the dangers of entertaining or engaging with extremists. Hannah Arendt wrote urgently about that. But she also held some racist views herself. Iâve heard people arguing that we shouldnât listen to her because of these views. Itâs these kind of reductive arguments that make me nervous. People are complicated, conservatives no less so. I fully support protests rooted in drawing attention to our blindnesses, and calling people out for their wrongdoings, but not when they vilify people out of proportion. Reducing complicated people to their very worst parts doesnât seem to me to be an effective way to encourage them to embrace their better angels. I think when my former neighbors in Kentucky see the walk outs and so forth, it only further convinces them of the frivolousness of elite liberals and the lack of respect for people like themselves.
The problem here is that those on the right who are crying because âliberalsâ arenât listening are labelling anyone who simply disagrees with them as one of the evil liberals and they arenât willing to do the courtesy of listening back.
Besides, the reason people are walking out is that they have been listening. Theyâve heard the speakersâ views before and found them appalling. Why should they have to listen again, then have that âpolite respectâ be misrepresented as support, especially when the speaker has campaigned before to eliminate their very existence?
Iâm gonna go ahead and say, Iâve heard enough out of the alt-right. They donât have much to say, and in fact none of what they say is important.
So, why should we tolerate or accept bigots and morons? If you have less than ten million dollars in the bank and are alt-right youâre being fooled, are a fool, or have some kind of malevolence I canât grasp.
Youâre still here, youâre still whingeing about it, that means youâre being tolerated.
I donât buy it. First, I think the complaint about lack of respect is really a Catch-22, because respect doesnât seem to count unless it comes with ignoring things like racism and science denialism, and then itâs disrespectfully patronizing. I argued this here and here, and donât think I will do better repeating it.
Second, it seems people donât actually care if they have anything real to hang liberals as the real villains. It wasnât that long ago that Obama was being called the literal anti-Christ, an existential threat to American democracy, for passing a health care plan based closely on Republican ideas. At that point, you still think thereâs a way we can disagree at all without being vilified for it?
Third, this is the same line you hear for anyone who has ever stood up for civil rights â that they are too bold, too adamant, and it will only serve in turning more against them. Even groups like the suffragettes and MLK who were later broadly accepted were derided with this in their time. So Iâd want some real evidence why it is actually true this time.
Sure, Pence has some outdated views, like we all end up with. We wonât consider whether things like his attempts to make it legal to discriminate against LGBTQ people and to stop them from marrying who they want, to defund Planned Parenthood and anti-HIV programs, to keep refugees out of his state might actually affect other human beings. Opinions are just opinions, right?
This is the erasure of victims I was talking about above. Pence was a governor and is now vice president; I find it very telling how rarely you see politicians like him defended without the specious pretense that their attacks on other people somehow donât have real consequences for them. If you care about a civil and peaceful society, you shouldnât be making excuses for trying to disrupt the civil rights and peaceful lives of other people in it.
Yes, well, Iâm torn. Some part of me really agrees with you. Actually most of me. And I think students should have the right to walk out of commencement, god knows those things are usually insufferable, I can only imagine one given by Mike Pence. But the article was not solely about protests, it was about a more polarized intellectual culture, and that I am worried about.
I donât think any conservatives are crying about liberals not listening to them, at least I havenât met any. Especially since their party now controls the executive and legislative branches. I donât think they think liberals are evil either; at least no one ever called me evil to my face. (Behind my back? Who knows, I guess.) in fact a lot of people did feel that liberal positions held the moral high ground, but werenât practical. Why should you continue to listen to these voices? Especially when some of them are stupid and offensive people who say stupid and offensive things? I donât know. I have to; theyâre my neighbors so I really have no choice. Maybe because itâs part of an accurate image of the US, I guess. They are representative of a big part of this country and ignoring them doesnât change that. They arenât going away anytime soon. Their problems- racism, etc.- are really our problems, US American problems. Case in point- we can block them from speaking at the universities but we havenât prevented them from gaining congress.
As a proud Greener alum, I have to step in here and say that this stink about Day of Presence/Day of Absence is not only typical of Evergreen, but pretty low key. The difference is social media. Literally that is all. I was there 20 years ago (OMG) and the Evergreen community struggled through many difficulties - it continues to do so, especially as it has challenged itself as an institution to be multicultural and pluralistic. There are structural differences at Evergreen that make this kind of foment possible and necessary - the administrative duties other than the president are rotated amongst faculty and there are no âdepartmentsâ in the traditional sense.
I donât see evidence in the Evergreen community that this instructor is engaging with the greater community outside of his coursework (including co-teaching, which is odd thing not to do at Evergreen) and instead is choosing to put himself in a contrarian position of authority to the students, faculty, & staff. He seems like an arrogant prick who thinks his biology degree gives him carte blanche (these assholes seem to be fucking everywhere - are we sure thereâs a STEM shortage?). I see angry, hurt, & frightened students using the tools available to them - but due to their ages and perhaps recent empowerment, exercising poor judgement. I donât condone alledged threats against this instructor. I do expect more from EVERYONE involved - but so does the college.
I post this not just as a defense of my beloved alma mater, but also as an endorsement of the Evergreen process. Itâs engagment, not indulgence.
Ah, the people who would happily throw me under a bus (and have done repeatedly) because I donât live my life the way they think I should. That is not being moderate, that is appealing to bigotry.
I may be able to show solidarity on economic issues but I will NEVER be one of them, by their own choice as much as mine.
Since you bring up religious influences, I think this is worth quoting.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brotherâs eye,
but donât consider the beam that is in your own eye?
Matthew 7:3
Thankfully, here in the UK it is not unknown for a Lord Spiritual to speak out in favour of LGBT rights, reminding people it is possible to be socially liberal/left-wing and religious at the same time.
Iâm not really sure how using âmoldâ referring to students complaining about blatantly racist Halloween costumes as outside what the college wants as a part of its culture wouldnât be offensive⌠Itâs absolutely exclusionary, and the idea that putting on makeup and mocking another race is part of what she calls the collegeâs culture is a strong stance to take.
[quote=âMax_Blancke, post:25, topic:101773â]
But when I tried to educate my parents and professors, they were polite but pretty dismissive. And that was the right response.
[/quote]How is dismissing the views of all youth any better than the culture of silencing critics the OP and you are talking about? Just because older people are the ones saying it?
Beyond wisdom not being guaranteed with age, many older people are simply dismissive because they donât want to expand their viewpoints simply because they have thought the same thing for a long time. They are also not the first generation that thought the youth would ruin the world, and you should know that given your interest in history. Books, the radio, TV, the internet, social media - every single one has been attributed as the reason young peopleâs minds are rotten and why older people are correct to condemn all young people. Itâs a distinct intolerance of new ideas they donât like because they donât want to change.
Choosing to boycott or protest or call out or mock a speech by known rabble-rouser or authoritarian or bigot or just plan arsehole are forms of free expression, too. I do those things all the time with trolls here, for example â theyâre very predictable in their behaviour and about as âsubtleâ and âcleverâ as Anne Coulter and Milo.
Zakaria has good intentions in his defence of liberalism (as opposed to liberal political partisans, although heâs usually one of those, too). Heâs addressing a poorly educated television audience that has a very simplistic view of âfree speechâ so he just errs on the side of free speech and condemns anyone who seems to be opposing it â especially those who share his political views. The problem with this approach is that he also wants to present himself as a nuanced thinker (which he is when addressing his intellectual peers) and for all practical purposes isnât able to draw a line between his two audiences.
I think this is a lot of it. People really like standing up for those that have different views than them as a way of seeming balanced or nuanced or thoughtful. This strikes me as him signalling his virtue rather than arguing a real position.
Thereâs no shortcut to being rational or reasonable, though. This idea that listening to âboth sidesâ is more rational than dismissing one out of hand is obvious nonsense. Where is Zakaria in the flat earth conversation? Sometimes the most reasonable thing to do is dismiss an opinion as nonsense. When the opinion is that women should be in prison for having miscarriages thatâs not just reasonable, itâs also the only non-monstrous option.
Though they are a minority, there are quite a few religious liberal ministers and lay people in the US as well. But they rarely get mainstream media coverage, probably because they arenât frightening or outrageous, and therefore are bad for ratings.
ETA: I am not using the term âmainstream mediaâ sarcastically; I like the New York Times 
The problem for Zakaria here is that he works for CNN, where that obvious nonsense is standard operating procedure. And so, as Upton Sinclair said, âit is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.â
No, it was almost all about the current situation on campuses, and your insistence that a broader polarization is the real topic is a distraction from that one. The only part of the short article that fits your characterization of it is this:
In fact, it is only by being open to hearing opposing views that people on both sides of the political spectrum can learn something, Zakaria said.
âBy talking seriously and respectfully about agreements and disagreements, we can come together in a common conversation,â he said.
âRecognizing that while we seem so far apart, we do actually have a common destiny.â
That may have some merit in daily life, but itâs disingenuous of Zakaria to apply it to the current campus situation (for reasons pointed out above).
As for listening respectfully in daily life, you know what? No thanks. Iâve heard enough from bigoted, unwittingly self-defeating relatives and acquaintances, who miss some non-existent better Old Days and think minorities have it better than them and should keep their mouths shut. I really donât have anything to learn from them, and they certainly have no interest in listening respectfully to me.
I always have loved the primary speech from The American PresidentâŚspecifically this portionâŚ
America isnât easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause itâs gonna put up a fight. Itâs gonna say "You want free speech? Letâs see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, whoâs standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country canât just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the âland of the freeâ.
Yeah, I really donât feel like I have (or want) a âcommon destinyâ (whatever TF that means) with these people.
This is what all these false âappeals to toleranceâ from pseudo-intellectuals like Zakaria seems to miss. It is just a cover for them to get their terrifying ideas into the public sphere and onto college campuses, which they throw up as a defense when people point out how hateful their message is. It is not an ideal that they themselves hold, nor would they be willing to grant the same consideration to the other side if they were the ones controlling who got to speak on campus. I mean, how many times do lefties get a speaking platform at Liberty University or Oral Roberts?
