"The Psychology of Progressive Hostility"

[pegelli]

The article I linked to is a case from 2015. You can attack the source but I haven't seen the facts debunked.

[JoeKitchen]

One might phrase it slightly differently, stating that the progressive believes that injustice needs to be challenged, and that the world of tomorrow should be better than today, while conservatives knowledge of what correcting injustices will cost them personally makes them want the world of tomorrow to be the same as today (or maybe even rolled back 20 years).

While a progressive might be angry at an injustice, there are plenty of conservatives who manage to get angry over proposed gun controls or proposals to reduce pollution; people will always find it easier to justify anger when it is more closely aligned to their own views - I think this is why the author of the article finds those to the left of him to be more vehement..

I think this statement is a little too biased.  I could easily come up with some weird theory about liberals by looking at the fact that many anti-vaxers are liberal. 

The fact is conservatives want small government with self-responsibility whereas liberals want big government with shared responsibilities. 

On top of this, many, on both sides, have the false economic idea that in order for someone to be rich, others need to be poor.  This has never been proven nor is there any evidence to this theory, and certainly adds to the overall idea that government needs to be more involved in redistributing wealth. 

[James Clark]

I love it when people can only attack the source, it means they lost the argument

Btw, you're completely missing the point of why I posted my original remark. It's not that some of the things that are covered in the article Slobodan linked aren't true, it's the conclusion that hostile silencing of different opponents is the perogative of the liberal left. In my mind it isn't, the conservative right is just as good at it. It's mostly a "pot and kettle" type argument that leads nowhere and stifles true debate.

In fact, the whole thing smacks of hysteria, in a way.  Indications are that today's young people - despite being subject to "liberal indoctrination" - are actually more tolerant than in decades past, anecdotal ranting notwithstanding. And that extreme liberals are more tolerant than extreme conservatives. (And that extremes on BOTH sides seem to be nominally more tolerant than moderates.) There's an interesting sidenote, in that speech judged to be racist is actually less tolerated in contrast to the overall rise in tolerance, but there's a further sidenote to THAT in that a great deal of this specific intolerance seems to be directed at Muslim speakers who are giving a potentially anti-American message. 

Further, if you look at actual data you'll see that even on campus, attempts to "shout down" or deny a platform to speakers judged "offensive" don't conform to ideological boundaries, though I will concede that in the last two years, the balance has been significantly different, apparently due to repeated attempts to make noted instigator Milo Yiannopolis go away.  

[James Clark]

The article I linked to is a case from 2015. You can attack the source but I haven't seen the facts debunked.

I wasn't referring to your link.  Of course, you may not be responding to me here

[pegelli]

Of course, you may not be responding to me here

Indeed. I wasn't responding to you

[amolitor]

Well, take heart, Russ. The radical fringe lefties (the so-called SJWs) may be loud on campus, and they may have out of proportion impacts in certain areas, but I think the kids are basically OK.

This is just one story, so don't consider it to be conclusive.

I live in the Pacific Northwest, in a historically hippie community which is also a  college town. I live between two rentals, one of which houses 5 kids, one houses 7.

1. I go to more protests than any of them do.
2. The politically active boys who lived south of me a few years ago were doing ordinary
    campaign work, for the 2016 election, not weird fringe stuff. They knocked on doors
    for Bernie, as, frankly,  I would expect almost any 20 year old to have done in 2016.
3. As far as I can tell, they think that, for example, the big kerfuffle at Evergreen (google it, but
    it's standard SJW "THAT PROFESSOR NEEDS TO DIE IN A FIRE!" fare) was pretty much worthy of
    eye-rolling. Mild eye-rolling, to be sure. They don't want the fringees to die in a fire either.

Mostly the kids who live around me, both next door and around the neighborhood, seem to be ordinary college kids, focused on drinking beer, smoking a little weed, and studying enough to finish their degrees and get on with life.

Same as it ever was.

So, yeah, there's some shouty activists up at the school, and they control the student newspaper to a degree, and they yell about this and that. But the majority isn't really listening, and the overall impression is that they're just acting out, experimenting with activism, perhaps with being gay, or being artists, and soon enough they'll be letting their hair grow out to its natural color, going to law school, and heading to New York to get on with the important work of liberating the proles from their money.

[RSL]

I love it when people can only attack the source, it means they lost the argument

Btw, you're completely missing the point of why I posted my original remark. It's not that some of the things that are covered in the article Slobodan linked aren't true, it's the conclusion that hostile silencing of different opponents is the perogative of the liberal left. In my mind it isn't, the conservative right is just as good at it. It's mostly a "pot and kettle" type argument that leads nowhere and stifles true debate.

Sorry, Pieter, but the Daily Beast is so far off on the left it's practically out of sight. Yes, you're right. This kind of thing still happens, but it happens so rarely that an outfit like the Daily Beast has practically to beat itself to death finding an example. Yes, there are others, but damn few.

On the other hand, the instances of universities, especially faculties, rejecting conservative professors and speakers are legion. If you want to google something, google "Ben Shapiro's attempts to speak at universities." You'll run into things like "Berkeley Ben Shapiro speech: Protesters gather. . ," "Ben Shapiro's University of Minnesota speech inspires ire. . ." I could go on and on. If you look at the things Shapiro says in these addresses you'll see this reaction is grossly overdone. It's a case of kids and their handlers saying "Shut up. Don't say that. I don't want to hear it." And these are universities? Supposed places of learning? Sure! You betcha!

Another thing you might want to google is Charles A. Murray, author of "The Bell Curve." When he tried to speak at my own damn alma mater, University of Michigan, various student groups threatened to shut down the event if the faculty failed to do so. Harvard students protested Murray's speech, etc., etc., etc. I dare you to read "The Bell Curve." What you'll find is a lifetime of research and an argument based on reason. You may disagree with the argument, but if you do you'd better be pretty damn specific about the hole you find in his reasoning, and the protesters aren't even interested in that kind of logical hole.

I could go on and on with this crap. Shapiro and Murray are just the tip of the iceberg. The universities have been taken over by the left, and the kids there have been taught -- by the faculty and by faint-hearted university officers that they shouldn't listen to anything that makes them uncomfortable. Then they're taught which things ought to make them uncomfortable. As far as I'm concerned it's time to shut down all the universities and start over.

Yes, there are a few very unreasonable people on the far right, but there's a mob of them on the left. I use the term "mob" advisedly. I mean exactly that. It's a mob! and it's going to destroy the things that make the world work. Look at the violence. It's almost always from the left. You can find instances on the right, but you've got to knock yourself out trying to find them. To find violence on the left, all you have to do is open your newspaper.

[pegelli]

Yes, there are a few very unreasonable people on the far right, but there's a mob of them on the left. I use the term "mob" advisedly. I mean exactly that. It's a mob! and it's going to destroy the things that make the world work. Look at the violence. It's almost always from the left. You can find instances on the right, but you've got to knock yourself out trying to find them. To find violence on the left, all you have to do is open your newspaper.

The only thing I'd respond that there is plenty of violence on the right as well, it's not a matter of more or less, we can quibble about that until the cows come home to no effect.  The key is we need to condemn both. Anything that stifles an open debate (and that includes the crazy students that prevented C.A. Murray to speak, but also right wing nutters that prevent other people that they differ with from free speech) is far off base as far as I'm concerned.

[RSL]

C'mon, Pieter, give me some examples of this right-wing violence. I gave you a couple on the left. All you've been able to do is say that there's violence on the right. Sure there is, but compared with what's coming from the left, it's miniscule. I could spend all day listing examples on the left. I don't know where you get your information, but I'd be willing to bet it's mostly from the tube.

[pegelli]

LMGTFY

[Rob C]

Equal Opportunity:  All this means is that, given the same situation, two people will not be treated differently due to characteristics which have no objective bearing on their ability to do something.  Equal opportunity is not about being equal nor about making people equal or providing special opportunities to some groups.  It's about removing subjective bias.

By your definition, then I think it should be renamed something else. That might stop it (the phrase) being bandied about with such enthusiasm.

I can't help wondering how you would cope with the situation where two equally qualified people apply for the same job. Create two, equal jobs rather than disappoint one applicant?

Perhaps that was the dilemma Harvey W. was doing his best to resolve the cheapest way he knew how... clearly, a false economy: shoulda just made more pictures and given 'em all roles to play. Bet he wishes he'd thought of that!

:-)

[James Clark]

Pieter, the thing is, statistically speaking, there's just not that much actual violence on either side, but the right wing media specializes in triggering the fear response of their sympathetic readers.  The end result is that well-meaning folks like Russ see the imminent end of civilization as we know it because a few idiot kids fail to see the hyperbole and fear mongering of the Milos and Shapiros and Coulters for what they are.  What we DO see, however, is an uptick in verbal assault and confrontation.  I don't have stats at hand, but again, I suspect that the rise of "hate speech" is happening on both left and right.

Still, look at the stats I linked to above.  As Andrew points out far more eloquently than I ever could, "the kids ARE alright." 

[pegelli]

Pieter, the thing is, statistically speaking, there's just not that much actual violence on either side, but the right wing media specializes in triggering the fear response of their sympathetic readers. 

Couldn't agree more, it just feels a lot because that's what the media (on both sides) focus on. The reasonable non-violent majority in the middle is not newsworthy and gets little attention. And I also believe that violence is actually quite balanced between extreme left and right.

[PeterAit]

Yes, there are a few very unreasonable people on the far right, ...

Are you serious with this statement?

I have no patience with university students/faculty who try to prevent a conservative from speaking. But as for "reasonable" far right people, I can only offer this partial list:

Believe that Clinton ran a teen sex ring from a DC pizzeria. All conservative.
Believe that women are inferior to men and should stay at home. All conservative.
Believe that human-influenced climate change is a hoax. All conservative.
Espouse traditional “Christian family oriented values” yet voted for Trump the liar, cheat, and molester. All conservatives.
Believe that blacks and other dark-skinned people should be suppressed and segregated. All conservative.
Believe that creationism is true. All conservative.
Believe that Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh etc. are accurate sources of information. All conservative.
Believe that immigrants commit more crimes than people born here. All conservative.

Reasonable?

[amolitor]

I disagree, pieter, the SJWs shout a lot and from time to time get someone fired, whereas the right-wing fringe shouts a lot and from time to time shoots a whole pile of people or drives a car through a a crowd.

Yes, yes,  I know. THOSE guys aren't right wing zealots, they're crazy people and you disavow them completely, but you're going to insist that I cannot just the same disavow the SJWs, whatever. Don't even bother.

ETA: Yes, this is a historical accident caused by the fact that, at the moment, lefties are on a bit of an anti-violence kick. Doesn't make it false.

[James Clark]

Yes, yes,  I know. THOSE guys aren't right wing zealots, they're crazy people and you disavow them completely, but you're going to insist that I cannot just the same disavow the SJWs, whatever.

Precisely this.

[pegelli]

I disagree, pieter, the SJWs shout a lot and from time to time get someone fired, whereas the right-wing fringe shouts a lot and from time to time shoots a whole pile of people or drives a car through a a crowd.

The left has had their share of deadly violence as well, haven't seen any real data that one side is significantly better than the other (other than in their own Echo chambers)

[Farmer]

The *article* is from 2012.  It references the 1925 incident    More likely today than firing a teacher for teaching evolution is the goofy tendency to elevate creationism as an equally valid subject for scientific study:  http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/316487-new-wave-of-anti-evolution-bills-hit-states

You're quite right, James.  The issue, though, is alive and well which is why the article was written.  Your example is better.

[amolitor]

Fair enough, pieter. It's likely regional as well as temporal.

If you stretch back even a few decades the left-wing terrorists develop a pretty impressive body count, and it's entirely possible that in Europe they're far more violent than in the USA even today. Honestly, our media does not do a good job of explaining who's on what side. I don't know, offhand, where to place, say, Basque separatists.

Here in the USA the left wing maniacs are mainly trying to police speech and get people fired, at the moment.

ETA: The fact remains, though, that there are those who would simply disavow their own fringe elements, of whatever sort, but insist that the other side claim theirs, and then declare "You're a bunch of weird fringees, not reasonable centrists like us" which is completely disingenuous.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...
Believe that Clinton ran a teen sex ring from a DC pizzeria. All conservative.
Believe that women are inferior to men and should stay at home. All conservative.
Believe that human-influenced climate change is a hoax. All conservative.
Espouse traditional “Christian family oriented values” yet voted for Trump the liar, cheat, and molester. All conservatives.
Believe that blacks and other dark-skinned people should be suppressed and segregated. All conservative.
Believe that creationism is true. All conservative.
Believe that Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh etc. are accurate sources of information. All conservative.
Believe that immigrants commit more crimes than people born here. All conservative.
...