Oh, I already made my well reasoned arguments. I cited studies, linked to incidents that fit your requests and so on. I showed you aggregated data that indicates (or at least argues) that on the whole, the premise of this thread is incorrect. I provided a link to a database showing speech intimidation on both sides of the aisle, and hey, I even admitted that there's been a documented imbalance (on campuses at least) over the last year or two.
Others asked why you restrict your definition of "violence" to college campuses where a right-leaning speaker is harassed, when right-wing violence is also occurring in the world around us. Many other people saw these points, and responded either with counterpoints, agreement, or additions. You simply chose to insult those people, their sources (while claiming Breitbart no less), or changed the terms of your conditions, or made excuses for those committing such acts from the right, while generalizing about those committing these acts from the left.
Besides, it's not like this is an isolated case with you - there's a definite pattern. Heck, Russ, you can't even comment on *photographs* without throwing sidelong insults at the other members of Lula regarding how they or their subject matter don't meet your standards of worthiness, even in cases where that's pretty much a total non sequitur.
So pot, meet kettle.
Now Russ, bear in mind that I'd never say that you should lose your right to express your opinion, here or anywhere else. That's one area where you, I, Slobodan and some others agree 100% I'm merely suggesting that if someone is unwilling to learn or make an honest exchange of information, they might better serve the community by keeping quiet and spending a little time in self-reflection.
I learn something pretty much every day. Do you?
Really though - go back, look at what you've written here and elsewhere. Think about whether or not you treat your fellow contributors here with respect. Especially those that disagree with you.
Thanks, James. That sounds like a well-reasoned argument. And "studies" certainly tell us what's going on. After all, figures don't lie. (Which ignores the fact that liars figure.)
But let me go on to the crux. Why do I restrict my definition of "violence" to campuses where what you consider to be "right-leaning" speakers are harassed?
I'll be 88 on Friday, and I've watched the whole thing unfold. I think the main problem with our society nowadays is our universities. They were taken over in the sixties by left-leaning -- I'm tempted to call them "crazies," but I don't want to argue about that. Many of them were hippies, and a few were people who'd not only disrupted our society, but were criminals who'd been let off the hook.
When I was in high school we had rifle teams. Many people owned firearms, but shootings -- especially mass shootings -- were so rare they almost were nonexistent. Near the end of the century I watched the "deinstitutionalization" of mental misfits. I've told the story of the poor woman in Colorado Springs who used to spend her days wandering around town pulling her wheeled suitcase, sitting most of the day slouched on a bench, depending on a couple local restaurants' largess for food. There were plenty of others in the town, like the poor gap-toothed drifter who saw my camera, came up to me and said, "Take my picture," and when I gave him a print of it about a week later broke into tears and said, "That's the first time somebody's taken my picture in twenty years."
Now, these people were -- at least at the moment -- harmless, but needed to be out of society and in a place where they could be cared for and watched, not only for their own good but for the safety of society at large. But it isn't going to happen, and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a direct result of our unwillingness to deal with the problem.
What happened? The people who went to war in WW II grew up in a world scarred by the Great Depression. When the war was over and they settled down again, they swore their kids never would have to face the kinds of hardships they'd faced, so they supported those kids well beyond the time when they should have been out of the house, and they made sure gathering places like schools were "gun free zones." They did their best to remove any irritants or obstacles the kids might face. The result was what we called the "boomers." The boomers carried the idea that kids shouldn't have to face life head-on far beyond where their parents had carried it.
So now we have a couple generations that aren't willing or able to face the world as it is. Roughly half of the group we call millennials believe socialism is better than capitalism, though even a simple, quick examination of history refutes that idea. Sure, capitalism has its problems. but to paraphrase Churchill: capitalism is the worst of all economic systems, except for all the rest.
The bottom line? Our universities have become indoctrination engines for doctrines that eventually will destroy the West. The fact that a bunch of kids and their "professors" can't listen to a point of view different from the thrust of their indoctrination will, eventually, be catastrophic for our society. If you want to see how that plays out, check the history of the Inquisition. See any parallels? If you don't, you're part of the problem.
I have no idea how old you are James. N/A doesn't tell me much. Same thing with your location. If I knew whether "Local Time" means local for you or local for me I might be able to guess. But why should I have to do that. In the end, all I have is your collection of assertions and references to "studies." That doesn't cut it.